The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1875-10-25
Supreme J Judicial Court.

STANDARDIZATION Rand VS.. Moses D. Skill
lings and wife. Writ of entry demanding possession
Of lands in Cape Elizabeth specified as lots numbered
20 and % on plan recorded of Woodbury. Overs
land made by VIM. Anson, June 20, 1847 and con-
yeyed to plaintiff by George S. Hay by deed of March
Goth, 1871.
Defence-Your action admits us in possession and
gives US the nine points to start with. We don't
care to trace title farther back than the deed
to E. Gerry, 18th September, 1S5Swe your title
blck more than 100 years and find your eastern
boundary line extending northward from the
northeasterly corner of the burying ground called
the Stanford line. All the deeds mention a spring
and stone near by, point by which we can find
at this time the Stanford line. The Stanford line SO
found makes your eastern and my western boundary
and 80 much Of the lots have occupied falls on
the eastern side of that line Our deed from Elbridge
Gerry is dated March H. 1871 which is earlier than
yours. Perhaps after you found we had purchased
and began building you bought in for the sake of the
luxury of a law suit.
ReDly-Perhaps the old Stanford line is the true
boundary line between us, and admit that it starts
from N. E. corner OF the old burying ground; but in
stead Of starting off on line with the east side of
the lot, it verges eastwardly the line of an old
stone wall, and that throws the premises all on cur
side of the line.
The court, at the request of the defendants, in
sructed the jury on the matter Of estoppe that if
Bradbury Rand, the plaintiff, advised and encour-
aged the defendants to build house upon the lot of
land in question: without disclosing the fact that he
claimed to be the owner of it, and that the defend
ants in pursuance of such ADVICE and encourage
ment did build house in ignorance of the formers
title, and believing that they the owners of the
land the law will not permit the plaintiff as former
owner to recover the land from the defendants whom
he has thus advised and encouraged to spend their
money and means upon it. That to allow him to do
30 would be an act of fraud and injustice which the
owner Ia estopped to set up assert his own title
against the defendants whom he has thus msled.
And that whether the defendants in this case were
advised and encouraged by the plaintiff is question
of fact to be determined by the jury.
Verdict-The jury find that the defendants did dis
seize the plaintiff in manner and form the plaintiff
has declared against them. And the jury further
find that the demanded premises had been in the ac-
tual possession of the tenants and those under whom
they claim for than six successive years before
commencement OF the action; and that the increased
value of the premises by reason of the buildings and
other improvements on the premises is seven hun
dred and thrtyhree dollars and thirty cents.
And the jury further find that the value OF the de-
manded premises at the time of the trial. if build
ings had been erected or other Improvements made,
would be one hundred and fifty dollars.
Merrill with Clifford for plaintiff.
Howard g. Cleaves for defendants.
Merrill VS.. Merrill. On trial.