Crosby v. Bradbury
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Tins was a writ of entry. Plea mil disseizin, as to that part of the plan marked A A and a disclaimer as to that part of the plan marked B. The following plan describes the premises demanded. The demandant accepted the disclaimer and joined issue as to the disseizin.
Read the full summary
Tins was a writ of entry. Plea mil disseizin, as to that part of the plan marked A A and a disclaimer as to that part of the plan marked B. The following plan describes the premises demanded. The demandant accepted the disclaimer and joined issue as to the disseizin. The demandant to establish his title introduced a deed from William Bradbury to Elihu Baxter, dated August 3d, 1835, conveying, “A certain saw mill site in Levant village with the saw mill, machinery and fixtures thereon standing, including shingle machine, and cutting off saw, also one undivided fourth part of mill common,” also…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was by
Weston C. J.
The title of the demandant is deduced principally, by reference, from the deed of William Bradbury, then the owner of the entire property, to Elihu Baxter, dated August 3, 1835. That conveyed “ a certain saw mill site in Levant village, with the saw mill, machinery and fixtures thereon standing, including shingle machine and cutting off saw.” It is agreed that the mill, then and now standing, covers the whole demanded premises, as well the part defended, as the part disclaimed. This description would very clearly pass the whole mill and the land…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Whitney v. OlneyU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Rhode Island · 1823
3Cited by3 opinions
- Evens v. GriscomSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1880
- Gaddes v. Pawtucket Institution for SavingsSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1911
- Coddington v. HopkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865