The Somerset reporter., 1903-12-17
An important Case.

the Kennebec county case of Luther Il.
ooper VS. the Lawrence Brothers Com
pany. The decision Is one of the most
important rendered by the full bench
for long time. 1t settles not only the
law of land titles, but places a construc-
ton and Interpretation upon the act of
the Legislature passed few years ago
intending to protect the titles OF bona
fide land owners.
This is nominally Kennebec county
case but the land involved is in some1-
set county and the decision bears on a
large number of tracts of land in this
county.
1t is an action of troyef to recover the
value of large quantity of logs al eyed
to have been cut by the defendant COM
pany on township No 3, Range 6, west
OF the kenhebec river ia ~omerset coun-
ty. The case comes to this court on the
plaintiff motion TO set ASIDE verdict
in favor of the defendant, and ou excep
tons to the ruling of the presiding
judge.
The decision gives person a title to
the land if he has regularly paid the
State and county taxes thereon for a
period of twenty years and preven' 4
alleged "land grabbing 80 called The
plaintiff was represented by Taber d.
Bailey, Esq city solicitor of Bangor,
and the defendant by Hon Orville d.
Baker of Augusta, and A. X. Butler.
Esq, of Skowhegan. The rescript,
drawn by Justice Whitehouse in full. is
| lppnfhu nj oil. III
therefrom:
The defendant derived title to the
south half of the town from A and P.
oburn through several mense convey
snces, all deeds of warranty duly re-
corded, Oct. 1, 1872 A. and p. Coburn
conveyed the entire township to A. and
w. Sprague by deed of warranty record
ed Oct 8, 1872. Sept. l, 1873, A and
w. Sprague conveyed the whole town.
ship to the toburn Land ompany by
deed of warranty recorded Sept. 10,
1873 and as part of the same trans
action the Coburn Land ompany re
conveyed the township to A. and p.
CobuTn by deed of mortgage with COW
enants of warranty which was recorded
Oct. 81, 1878 This mortgage was duly
foreclosed the following year, and thus
by this series of recorded deeds of war;
rauty, A. and p. Coburn claimed to have
acquired full title to the entire town
ship and in 1880 Abner Coburn. acting
for himself and the heirs of his bi other,
Philander, conveyed the south half of
the town to Wildes and snow by deed of
warranty duly recorded August IL 1880,
in consideration of SOB 900. Oct u,
1885, the south half WAS conveyed by
Wildes and Snow to Lawrence Brothers
and by Lawrence BROTHERS to the de-
PENDANT company March 13. 1893, both
by deeds of warranty duly recorded.
he toburns and their heirs and de-.
yisees still retain the title acquired by
by them to the north half of the town.
In rebuttal the plaintiff introduced
further evidence tending To show that
at the time A. and T. Coburn conveyed
the whole town TO A. and W. sprague
in 1872 by deed of warranty they only
had recorded title to about One-fourth
of it,
Thus while this action of trover was
brought primarily to recover damages
for the conversion of the logs described
in the writ, the decision of the ,use
necessarily involves the question of
title to ownership from which the logs
were taken
Section of hapter 1852 Puplio Laws
of 1895, to which reference has been
made was given IN the decision in full.
but it states that Section of the act
declares that This act shall not apply
to actions between Go-tenants, nor to ac-
tons now pending in court. nor to those
commenced before Jan l, 1900 !"
1t satisfactorily appears from the
testimony that all OF the conditions
specified in Section l, applicable to
the facts of this case, were fulfilled by
the defendant and its predecessors in
title respecting the south half and by
the defendants licensors and their
predecessors as to the north half of the
! township in question They claimed
under recorded deeds describing wild
lands; the record of the State treasurer
shows that they paid the taxes; they
held for more than 20 years such exclu
sive, peaceable, continuous and adverse
possession of the township as COMFORTS
with the ordinary management of the
wild lands in Maine, and during that
time no former owner OF person claim
ing under him, paid any TAX or assess
ment of ownership The verdict of the
jury establishing these facts was clearly
warranted by he evidence.
But the plaintiff contended that as
there was no adverse possession of the
township at common law during this
period and as he only claimed to own
fractional part of it, the Coburn heirs
and the defendant company must be
tenants in common with him and hence
by the express terms of Section 4, the
act of 1895 did not apply to this case
The presiding justice overruled this
contention, "because the Coburn Land
Go, in 1873 had deed which was put
upon record on the 10th of September,
1878, not fractional interest. but of the
whole town, and they have claimed, not
as CO tenants with someb ,dy else, but
they have claimed to be the exclusive
owners of the whole town up to the
time that in 1880 they divided it and
sold the whole OF the south half of the
town
The law court sustained the presiding
justice in this important point of the
, case Thus overruiiug the motion and
exceptions and deciding in favor of the
defendants