Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1886-05-18
NUMBER 20.
LAW COURT DECISION.

The Clerk OF Courts has received from
the Law Court. . decision In the case OF
Aaron s. Cobb vs.. Moses Corbe,i.
Thi. case was originally tried before
Trial Justice. and from hi. decision an
appeal Was taken to the S. j. Court for
this county. and the case was heard at
the September term. 1884
The Tlaia,id claimed to recover OF
defendant the sum Of $3.50. being
double the value Of fence which the
defendan, neglected 20 build IN accord.
sncs with the direction Of the fence
viewers Of the town Of Hebron. where
the fence W. situated. together With
their fees. taxed at s?.2j. ard rs cents
interest. computed a, the rate Of one per
cent. per month on 'Aid sum, as provided
by statute. prior to the date OF the plain.
tits writ.
The plaintiff and defendan, w,ie oeeu-
pant. and owner. Of adjacent lands, and
disagreed respecting their obligation TO
maintain a partition fence bs,seen them.
on application Of the plaintiff. the fence
viewers Of the town Of Hebron. where
the land. lie, after reasonable notice TO
each party in writing under their hands,
assigned 20 the plaintiff and 10 the de-
fsndant their respective shares in such
partition fence by appointing TO the plain.
iid a portion Of the same Ia the centre
Of the line. and 10 the defenian, the
residue a, each end. and required each TO
build hi. part Of the fence within twenty
day. from such assignment. Whereupon.
the plaintiff. havin. bull, par, only OF the
fsnoe 80 assigned to him. bull, ,hs, por-
ton Of the fence assigned 20 the defend
an, a, one end Of the line After due
notice given by the plaintiff TO the de-
fnd.nt, said fence viewers sdjudged such
portion Of the fence assigned TO the de-
fendani, so built a. aforesaid. sufficient.
and determined the value thereof 10 be
eigh, dollars And fifty cents. and certified
their fees 20 be two dollars and twenty
five cents. The plaintiff demanded OF
the defend.n, double the value OF such
fence a. Aforesaid. and the fee. Aforesaid.
The defendAn, neglected and refused for
one month after such demand 70 pay the
same whereupon. ,hi. 'ui, was brought.
10 recover a. above stated. according TO
the statute.
The defendAn, eoniended iha, the &C.
,ioa could no, be maintained. because
the pllin,ia had neither completed the
whole Of hi, portion Of sAid fence so
assigned 20 him /. aforesaid, nor all OF
the defendant. potion thereof. and Tor
these reason. oaly claimed decision ia
hi, favor.
The Court ruled as a matter Of law.
,h., such objection was no, well ,aken'
and that by reason thereof the action
could no, be defeated. and ordered juds.
men, ior the plain,iG in the sum OF
$40 50. with in,ere,, from the date OF
the plaintiff. writ. 70 wit: July 10th,
1881. To ,hi, ruling the defen5an, eS.
cep,,d. and the ae,ioa was carried 10 the
Law Term 10 July, 1885.
Tn. opinion !, by Foster, J., and i' 4.
follows:
The remedy provided by X ). Chap. ~
Sec. G, In relation 20 division fences, Is
nn.l as well as remedial, and viii not be
extended by implication % cases not
clearly embraced within the provisions OF
the statute.
To sntltle recovery OF 'double the
value and expenses" OF building tha, por-
ton OF division fence assigned by fence
viewers ~ the party who negiecis 10 oalli
the same, II must sppear that The parry
seeking such recovery has ballt the whole
OF the part thus assigned.
IL "ihe par, thus Assigned" which the
aggrieved party IL authorized TO build
upon refusal or neglect OF the other party
and not any fraction OF such part.
Exceptions sustained.
Blsbee & iIersey fOr pl,ln,lr