The Portland daily press., 1891-06-03
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT.

dOOAA OOu&nAg
@-----------------~---
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT.
The following decisions, with rescripts,
were yesterday received by the Clerk of
Courts for the Western District from the law
court:
ANDRosCoGGIN COUNTY.
Alexander Mckenzie VS.. Linneus Cheet-
ham.
Rescript by Judge VirgiI-One who visits
dwelling house on the express or implied
invitation of the tenant at will cannot be
deemed as present therein on the implied in
yitation of the landlord.
Exception sustained.
OXFORD COUNTY.
Coleman F. Lord VS.. Joseph w. Parker,
aplt.
Rescript by Judge Walton-An action of
debt to recover tax may be maintained In
the name of the collector OF a village cor
p0ration. Such officers are included within
r. S. c. 6. sec. al.
1t is not bar to such an action that the
collector, in settlement with the treasurer,
has paid all the taxes due including the tax
sued for. before the action was commenced
IL appearing that the defendant did not au-
th0rize the payment, nor that it was made by
the plaintiff with an intent to extinguish the
tax, or to relieve the defendant from his
liability to pay it.
Iuformaltties in a warrant for the collec-
ton of village corporation tax, legally and
regularly assessed, will not bar such an ac-
ton, even although the warrant might not,
perhaps, be sufficient to authorize an arrest
OF the defendant, or distraint of his proper
ty.
An overlap, 1t being less than five per cent,
does not render the assessment of a village
corporation tax illegal or void, where by the
terms OF its charter, such assessments are to
be made in the same manner as county asses
ments.
In the absence of any known statute re-
curing the assessors of village corp Grafton
to be sworn, the fact that the oath was ad .
ministered to them by the corporation clerk
does not render an assessment of taxes
illegal or uncollectable.
Judgment for plaintiff for the amount of
the tax sued for.
HANCOCK COUNTY.
Irene o. Alley ct al in equity VS. Sarah A.
Chase.
Rescript by Judge Walton. This is a suit
in equity presenting substantially the same
question litigated in Chase VS.. Alley, 80
Maine, 234, that was an action of dover. 1t
was defended on substantially the same
The plaintiff, Mrs. Chase, prevailed. The
court Is now asked TO enioin her against en-
forcing her judgment. The court declines
to do SO, or to furnish the plaintiffs in this
suit with any other remedy which will de-
feat Mrs. Chase's right to have her dover, as
determined in that action. And for the fol.
lowing reasons:
First-It is a settled rule in equity that
law, suit in equity to enforce the same
right cannot he maintained. There are a
few exceptions to the rule; but none of them
apply in this case. The same right which
the parties seek to enforce In this suit, not
only could have been, but actually was, pre-
sented as ground Of defense in the action
OF dover, and was passed upon by the court.
1t not only might have been, but 1t was in
fact litigated in that suit. For that reason
alone, If for no other 1t would be the duty of
the court to refuse the relief asked for in
this suit.
Second-In the action of dover, the jus.
tice presiding at the trial in the court below
instructed the jury that the evidence offered
construction, of which 1t was susceptible,
did not constitute defense to the action,
and the law court sustained the ruling. And
this ruling was not based on formal or tech.
nlcal defects in the evidence; it was based
on its inherent weakness and utter INSULT
cheney to establish the facts on which the de-
tense rested. And for this reason, If there
were no other, the court would feel com
PEELED to refuse the relief asked for in this
suit. Bill dismissed with costs.
Sylvanus Jordan, in equity, VS.. Sarah A.
Chase.
Rescript by Judge Walton-ThIs is a suit
IN equity presented at the same time and
supported by the same evidence as the fore.
the same reasons, namely, the inherent
weakness and utter insufficlency of the evil
dence in support of the facts on which the
right to the relief asked for rests. The same
entry must be made
Bill dismissed with costs.
ards ct al.
Reseript by Judge Virgin-Where land
bounded southerly on the seashure and ex.
tending one league in width on each side Of
river at Its mouth, as granted together
with the Island of Mount Desert and "othel
Islands" on the fore part of said two from
leagues,
Held. that in ascertaining the location OF
the "Other islands" mentioned, the rule gov
erning flats" between adjoining owners OF
land situated on the rear shore does not APP
ply Ehe defendant. o,.,,, ,,.,o ;, 49,, !, -,
Porcupine Islands in Frenchman's Bay,
known as RoundPorcupine through the state
OF Maine, from the Commonwealth of Mas.
sachusetts In 1919 and 1875. The plaintiffs
contend that the Commonwealth, by resolve
IN 1877, granted 1t with other islands to one,
Gregoire. 1t appeared that few months
thereafter special agent of the Common
wealth and Gregoire with surveyor pro-
cSeeded to the locality and established the
line OF the grant: Five years afterwards
Gregoire conveyed all the land and islands
granted, mentioning Is islands by name, but
not including any of the Porcupines or
otneIs IN their vicinity, and never afterward,
~ aHi 90 VIC county registry SHOWS, attempt
ca TO convey any Of the POrcupine islands,
On the other hand, the Commonwealth did
subsequently, authorize the location of 5OC
acres on the Porcupine islands. Held: That
In the absence OF any more direct evidence
of the location of the grant, these contempo.
raneous and subsequent acts of the narties
are sufficient evidence that Round Porcn-
pine was not included therein.
To effect the decision of the real owner Of
land, the entry, under duly registered deed
from one having no title, must be followed
by an open, notorious, exclusive possession
continued uninterruptedly during the statute
period.
Such deed is evidence of the extent Of
the grantees claim, but the registration 1:
constructive notice to those only who would
claim under the same grantor
Inc essential use and occupation by ont
claiming adversely must be of such unequiv
ocal character as will reasonably indicate Il
the true owner visiting the premises during
the statute period, that, instead of suggest
ing the probable Invasion of q mere occa
slonal trespasser, they unmistak ahiv show
ownership. F'-0pi'"'ion anu
The facts in this case are rot sucb 40 can
LAY tne ioundatlon Of presumed grant from
Massachusetts or Maine. si"u' Aronl
Judgment for defendants.
Maine Medical School.
A report is in circulation that the d,roo,or,
Of the Maine Eye and Ear Infirmarv mada .