Look v. Norton
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On Report. Trespass quare clausum, for entering and cutting wood and timber. Plaintiff testified he had been in possession of the locus in quo since 1827. Moved upon the lot October 25, 1828, and continued to live there until July, 1849, and have occupied the lot ever since. Enclosed eight or ten acres where house and barn were. Claimed the lot by adverse possession. Built a house and two good barns and good fences which are now standing.
Read the full summary
On Report. Trespass quare clausum, for entering and cutting wood and timber. Plaintiff testified he had been in possession of the locus in quo since 1827. Moved upon the lot October 25, 1828, and continued to live there until July, 1849, and have occupied the lot ever since. Enclosed eight or ten acres where house and barn were. Claimed the lot by adverse possession. Built a house and two good barns and good fences which are now standing. Wood not cut within the inclosure by defendant. " Mr. Asa Tucker moved into our house on the lot twenty-six years ago. Told him when he got ready I would…
1Opinion of the CourtDanforth, J.
As early as 1827 the plaintiff took possession of the land upon which the alleged trespass was committed, and moved upon it in October, 1828. From his own testimony, we learn that, when he took possession, he expected to get a title from the owner by purchase; that, after having been sometime iu possession, he did not consider that he then had a title, because he had not been in possession twenty years. What effect this testimony may have upon his title, it is not necessary for us to determine. There can' be no doubt, from the testimony in the case, that, at the expiration of the twenty…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- M'Lellan v. WhitneyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1818
3Cited by3 opinions
- Johnston v. MeaghrUtah Supreme Court · 1897
- Consolidated Home Supply Ditch & Reservoir Co. v. HamlinColorado Court of Appeals · 1895
- Consolidated Home Supply Ditch & Reservoir Co. v. HamlinColorado Court of Appeals · 1895