Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1901-07-27
LAW COURT DECISIONS.

/ Clerk Adams Of the Bangor municinal
court from the Maine law court Friday.
the decision for the plaintiff In the case
of Charles |. Dean Of Brewer, VS. l.. w.
Cushmdn Of Ellsworth. is reversed SIX
other cases are affected by this decision
The resCript was drawn by Justice Saw
age.
The case in question was tried before.
Judge Nosc in the municipal court or
June %. 1899 The plaintiff sued for $40 -
for conversion of hay and Judgment was
given him for the full amount. The case
wa then taken to the law court on ex-
ccptions. BY the rescript Just received
these exceptions are sustained and tn,
Judgment of the lower court is reversed.
Martin & Cook appeared for the plaintiff
and John A. Peters. Jr. OF Ellsworth for
the defence.
The rescript is as follows:
\ mortgagor of chattels. having the
right of possession until broken may sell
his right 10 redeem them. and IL ne sells
that, and only that h. may lawfully de-
liver possession of the pronerty to the
purchaser. But If such mortcagor sells
the entire property. the mortgages in
tcrest as well as his own the sale is I'M
lawful. against the mortgage. and
when accompanied by the removal Of the
4 conversion on his part. Such CONVEX
sion puts an end to the mortgagors right
Of possession, and Immediately rcNcsts
that right in the mortgagcC. 1t does not
follow. however. that the purchaser Is
likewise guilty OF concersion.
1t is the opinion of the court that one
who purchases I'm good faith. without ac-
tuaI notice. murtgagcd chattels OF the
mortGaEor in possession If he has mere
~ received the goods into his own pos
sion and has exercised no other domiu-
ion or control over them Ia the exclusion
of the mortgage or in defiance Of his
rights. is not liable for 4 conversion,
without demand or refusal.
Exceptions sustained.
The following resCript. drawn by JUS
tcc Emery. Was received b. Clerk 81
7 Courts Sweet. Friday. in the case of Ed
win G. RurleiSh vs.. Charles W. Mullen Il
ais. The action WAS to determine the ii
tie to valuable timber lands and was one
Of the most important cases Of its nature
which has come up in the supreme court
in recent years. 1t has been in litigation
for a considerable length of time. The
rcScript is as follows:
J. The resolve Of 1926. Oh. T.. appropri
a'nS lands for the satisfaction of claims
under a prior resolve of 1885. ch 80 i'm
favor of soldiers of the Revolutionary
war and their widows, provided that the
distribution Of the lots shall be made
ny draft in such a manner AS the gov
ernor and council may direct" a draw
ing was had in January. 1857. by all per
sons who then proved their claims Sub
sequently. other persons proved Their
claims and were allowed to select un-
drawn and unsold lots in the order OF
proving their claims
Held: That it was necessary to orde:
new draft each time a claim was prov
ed. and deed from the State of a 10,
thus selected passed uue.
| person who was seafaring mar
went to sea nine years before the cXecu-
ton of deed by a guardian Of his heir
and had never been heard from during
that time and was supposed to be dead
This was testified to. not by his VIE oil
children. but only by a relative of the
family who saw them during that time
a petition was then addressed to tn,
proper probate court reciting the dea Il
of the person and asking for the appoint
ment of a guardian. for his minor child
The usual public notice was given and tn,
probate judge found the fact Of the dealt
and appointed a guardian.
Held: That in the absence of any evi
dence that the person was alive. the fore
going is sufficient evidence that he was
dead.
Judgment for the plaintiff for one un
divided half of lot FIVE in Township tire,
and for % undivided sixth-tenth parts o
lot 81 in Township four. Indian Purchase
! Damages to be assessed at nisi priu!
by the presiding justice.
PenobsCot case Parker p. Burleigh VS.
Charles w. Mullen K ais Rescript bl
Emery. J. (No opiniOn).
The published opinion of Millett "
Mullen governs this case to the extent o
determining that the defendants have n,
title. and that the plaintiffs predecessor
in title, notwithsta nding their delinquen
cy in not paying State taxes. have ha,
revived in them by the State an herita
BILE and conveyable title good agains
strangers to the States title. The onl,
remaining question is what of the origina
title the plaintiffs deraign from thos
predecessors
The demanded premises are lots - an,
80 in Township No 3. Indian Purchase