The Portland daily press., 1885-12-15
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT.
The following decisions were received from the
Law Court yesterday:

hENNElEC COONI1
j. b. Low admir- VS.. A. ID. Jenness:
Rescript By FigYi7s. J.-Replevin of seventy-fiYe
articles and classes or sets of household property
brought by the administrator on the estate of a
deceased wife against her husband. The officers
return, as amended, specified sixty-four articles
and classes OF the property mentioned in the writ
erty; and by brief statement claimed title in him
self to twenty specified articles and classes
of the property. The jury returned two yerdicts,
for the plaintiff for four articles the title to
which the defendant claimed; but the jury did
not find and state their value as required by r. ST.
chap 81, sec liz Their aggregate value alleged
in the writ was S2.63 the other for the defendant
for twenty articles, four of which he did not claim
in his brief statement, the value of which, as fixed
in the writ being $2.76.
Thrty-sx of the articles specified in the officers
return the jury did not pass upon; twentyeight of
them, as the plaintiff testified, were surrendered
to him before the service Of the writ. Eight of
those comprised in the return, and on which the
jury did not pass the defendant neither surrender
ed to the plaintiff before service OF the writ nor
claimed In his brief statement. Their value, as
set out in the writ, was 1925.
In the absence of the agreement of the parties
we perceive no legal correction of this comedy of
filed.
Verdict set aside and new trial granted.
FRANKLIN COUNTY.
Sandy River r. r. Co. in equity vs. Philip H.
Stubs:
RTscript By Varyi,a, IA director of a railroad
company is, in equity, its trustee; and notwith-
standing this tiduciary relation, his purchase of
land across and upon part of which he antic-
pateS the track may be located and buildings for
railroad purposes cannot necessarily be conSid-
cred, at the option of the company to have been
made in trust for it,
Thus where the directors of the company were
unable to make satisfactory terms with the owner
of land for a right of way for a proposed change
of the location of its track, and the defendant pur
chasedtwith his own funds without any suggestion
of his associates what was deemed much more of
the land than was needed bv tie company and i'm
mediately thereSpsn made a full report of his
negotiations 20 his associates who at once repu-
dated the transaction as made on the defendants
individual responsibility and not in behalf of the
company which he confirmed; but subsequently
the track was located and the buildings were
erected across and upon portion of the land
and committees appointed at various times to
settle the land damages with the defendant, with
him agreed upon and staked out the quantity of
land needed and the compensation therefor, but
failed to finally adjust the matter because the de-
PENDANT would only convey the for railroad
purposes and not the fee of the land; and then
more than three and one-half years after the TAX
ing of the land, claimed for the first time to the
defendant, that he held the whole land in trust for
of the whole land to the company on its payne mt
of the consideration paid by the defendant with
interest and expenses. Held that the bill cam OF
be sustained.
Decree affirmed. Bill dismissed with COSTS
Inhabitants of Rangeley VS.. Inhabitants of Bow
doin Same VS.. same.
Rcscript-Where a person having pauper set
Element in the defendant town, in 1887 removed
to, and lived more than five successive years in
their settlement from him thereby lost their set
Element by virtue of the provisions of statutes OF
1883, chap. 374.
Plaintiffs non-suit in both cases.