Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1901-07-29
LAW COURT DECISIONS.

P6nooSCot case. NJ. +. Millett ". ChaS
w Mullen. Rescript by Emery. j.
/. Statutes providing for forletIres of
property for non-payment Of taxes are to
he construed strictly against the State
ana its grantees. Statutes providing for
relief from forfeitureS are 10 he construed
liberally TO effect such relief
;. The statutes Of 1878. ch. Is. approved
Aug. ~. 1878. explicitly vested in the for
nner owner OF lands in unincorporated
places forfeited to the State under Il. 5.
1871. Oh. II. secs. 10. "A right 10 redeem
the same from the State, or its grantee.
ny paying the taxes. &c. at any time
within one year from the time Of sale b.
the State.
3. The above statute Of 1916 applied Il
those lands which had already been Whol-
II forfeited and the forfeiture had become
complete before til" date Of the statute.
Aug 10. lS4S. We'll As to land, not lher
wholly forfeited
This right to redeem this vested by
the statute of 1913 in the former owner If
lands thus wholly forfeited was NOR than
mere right TO purchase. vestln2 ~
present interest 1t was explicitly "A
right to redeem" that i. a right to an
loose from an incImbrance. The statute
reduced the States former lite to 4 lien.
and vested in the former owners a present
hertabIe and conveyabe title, good IN
them and their heirs and assigns. against
all parties but the State ana its lawful
grantees.
5. An advertisement for sale by tho
State OF "all the right. title and nterest
which the State of Maine has by Nirtu-
of such forfeiture wiz. completed for
in and to $500 acres of land III Township
No 3 Indian Purchase. and a deed from
the State with the same description and
no more. do not identity any SPECIFIC par
eel even any specific acres. and henc
do not pass the States title thereto. nor
bar the former owners right to redeem
his land from the forfeiture.
6 The heirs and assigns Of the former
owner OF land forfeited for non-payment
of State taxes have sufficient title to
maintain a writ of entry against par
tv whose only claim of title is under th-
sale and deed described in the last fore
going paragraph.
ton Of the statute of 1913. oh. %. Will de
prive the State of the revenues from.
taxes unon wild lands in urlncorporatei
places by encouraging land owners {,
ne.l. ct payment of taxes. cannot prevail
against the evident meaning and purpose
III the statute. 1t is for the Legislature
to remedy the evil, if any.
g. The fact that the parties supposin5
that they had acquired the States title.
have paid the State taxes upon any tract
of wild land for long series of Years.
does not Great. any tue IN them. me
payment of taxes by the act nal occupant
Of land is evidence Of the adverse charaC
ter of the occupancy. but is not evidence
that the taxpayer is in fact occupying
the land
o The mere cutting and removing tim
Der or wood from wild land from time To
time for sale or manufacture, without any
purpose of clearing the land. do not con-
stitute an occupation sufficient to bar the
record owner. though it be carried on for
more than ~ years.
10 No equities can be considered in tint
case. since the only question raised by
the pleadings or the evidence is to the
strict legal rule of legal title to property.
II. Hodgdon vs.. Wight. 70 Me W. Gus
tinguiSned Chandler ". Robbins, - Nc.
%. affirmed
Judgment Tor the plaintiff for one und
vided half OF each of the demanded lots.
Damages to be assessed at nisi priuS by
the presiding justice
Penobscct case. Rose J. Banton ct al.
vs. Harriet S. Griswold Roscript by En-
cry. j.
l. Tho word person in the statute
does not necessarily include the State it
self.
ton gives a person power to levy his
execution hv extent. and in another sec
ton gives the State power to levy its eX-
.cution by sale at public vendue. there is
some presumption that the intent to con
fine the State to Il levy by sale. since il is
not State function to acquire. hold and
manage lands as a private owner.
). When the provisions in such statute
for redemption for levy b. extent are
not available against the State as a levy
ing creditor in possession, but are avail
sale. it is sufficiently clear that the intent
of the Legislature was to coniine the
state TO levy by sale.
Judgment for the plaintiff for siXty-ono
one hundred and ninety-sec0nds. t6l-19l
of the sum collected by the defendant
from the land described in the writ Tie
amount to be determined at nisi prius.
Penohscot case. Mellen c. Pierce vs..
Clara W. Gibson ct ais. ResCrint by En-
cry. J. (No opinion.
The demanded land is lot No. - in
Township .. Range Z. w. f. l.. s. The
plaintiff shows rrima facie title b. an
unbrokcn chain of conveyances and in
heritan,e from the Commonwea'th OF
Massachusetts through Jonathan FARLEY.
q Revolutionary colder. The defendant