The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1877-10-26
Supreme Judicial Court.

OCTOBER TERM, WALTON, j., PRESIDING.
Eliza Lunt by guardian VS.. Jane Aubins Brown.
Writ Of error. January 20, 1876, Jane N. Brown
commenced an action against Eliza Lunt, returna-
BILE to the next March term of the Superior Court.
On the 10th day of February following, the writ was
served upon Eliza Lunt. On the 31st Of March fol-
lowing Eliza Lunt, not having appeared either by
herself or attorney, judgment was rendered against
her by default for $1162.s2, and costs $l2.49.
This action is brought to annul that Judgment on
the ground that at the time when the writ in that
case was served upon Eliza Lunt, and at the time
when Judgment was rendered against her, she was
insane incapable of taking care of herself Of man
aging her business affairs.
The defendant admits that Miss Lunt at one time
in 1868 became insane and committed to the In
sane Asylum at Augusta, but claims that at the
times in controversy she had fully recovered her
mental power. Verdict for plaintiff.
Mattocks g. Neal Orr-N Webb.
Susan D. H. Boyd vs. Samuel L. Carleton. Action
of dover. In 1871 some Al acr of land on Munjoy
Hil in this city, was seized upon an execution
against the husband of this plaintiff in favor Of the
Exchange Bank the premises at that time being I'M
occupied except by barn which was used for the
reception of hay cut on the premises. Subsequently
passed out of the hands of said bank in substantial
" the same condition as when seized upon execu-
separate parcels to twenty individuals this de-
PENDANT among others (hs lot being about 90 feet by
100.
There is no dispute but that the plaintiff is entit-
led to dover in the lot of land owned by defendant,
the only question being as to the rule of law to be
applied in estimating the amount Counsel for the
plaintiff claims that she is entitled to have so much
of the land set out to her as would give her an
amount equal to one-third of the present income OF
the property, excluding the improvements made up
on it since alienated by the husband, but including
the natural increase in value because of the improve
ments made in the remaining parcels covered by the
levy of 1871.
Counsel for the defe ndant contends that in esti
mating the amount of dover there should neither be
taken into consideration the increased value because
Of the improvements put upon this lot nor the in
creased value to it because ofthe improvements upon
the adjoining lands which with this lot constituted
the AZ acres levied upon in 1S41.
@There are several cases on the docket brought by
this plaintiff involving the same question as this
case There being dispute as to the facts in the
caseand the question of law net having been decided
in this state was agreed submit the case to the
full court on an agreed statement.
N. Webb. Carleton Rand
Divorces decreed this term:
orinda y. Edwards vs; HenN W. Edwards.
Eunlce d. cooper VS.. Joseph II. Cooper.
Charles Witham VS.. Fannie William.
Alice N. Turner VS.. Frederic T. Turner.
Harriet 9. I. Rooney vs.. VIM. D. Rooney.
Howard d. Dinge VS.. Sarah l.. Dinge.
Geo. A. Floyd VS. Abbe H. Floyd
Rebecca c. Butler VS.. Jeremiah Butler
Georgiana F. Phillips VS. David W. Phillips.
Statira A. Stevens vs.. Benjamin B. Stevens.
Jane L. Quimby VS.. VIM Quimby.
Mary f. Chase VS.. James Chase
Ellen w. Kerr VS.. Richard Kerr.
Lizzie Goday VS.. VIM. A Goday.
Sarah e. Curtis VS.. G. Everett Curtis.
VIM G. Pike VS.. Susie Pike
Julia M. Hanson vs. Geo. II. Hanson.
Lucinda Durgin VS.. Wheelock G. Durgin.
Maggie Knox VS.. L. Gilbert Knox
Nellie o. Tarbox vs. Andrew f. Tarbox.
Almra Sawyer VS.. Joseph M. Sawyer.
Agnes N Lubrano VS. George Lubrano.
Emily Croford VS.. Nathaniel Croford.
Charles II. Sheffield vs.. Mary Aonie Sheffield
Durham Whitney VS. Margaret Whitney.
Charles FL. Foss We. Frances E. Foss.