Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1903-12-12
THE LAW COURT.
Continued from page y

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
Co. in 1873 had a deed which was put
upon record on the 10Th of September
1873, not fractional interest, but of
the whole town. and they have claimed
not as co-tenants with somebody else
but they have claimed to be the eX-
elusive 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.. And the Lawrence
Brothers and their predecessors, tho
Wildes, did not claim, did not have a
deed of fractional interest, undivided
interest; they were not in possession
certainly claiming to be tenants in
common with ANYBODY else. because
their deed was of the whole of the
south half, and they claim, it is said.
to be the owners of the whole Of the
south half. Now if they had a deed
terest of the south half, or if the deed
to the COburns in the first instance.
or the Coburn Land Co. had been of an
undivided interest in it, then the con-
tention of the learned counsel for the
plaintiff would be applicable and this
statute would not affect his clients
right to maintain an action"
1t is the opinion of the court that
,-,,1i sri.- f,,
the statute q construction manifestly
in harmony with the intention of thu
Legisla ture. 1t was the obvious pur-
pose of that portion Of the statute OF
1895, applicable to this case to extend
the same relative protection to pos
sessOry titles to wild lands that all
other lands enjoyed under the law.
1t declares that when a person claims
under Il recorded deed describing wild
lands, etc." an has "held such exclu :
sivc. peaceable, continuous and ad-
verse possession thereof as COMFORTS
with the ordinary management of wild
lands in Maine" no action shall be
maintained to recover the land il all
the other requirements of the act are
fulfilled.
The provision of Section that tn !
"act shall not apply to actions between
co-tenants' must be considered in con-
ncction with the language of Section I
and construed With reference to the
object to be accomplished. II the acts
enumerated are performed by one who
"claims by virtue of a recorded deed
to be the owner of the entire tract. and
one who has maintained such quail
fled possession for 90 years in asser-
ton OF an exclusive title to the whole
tract, the statute applies: but if the
same acts are done by one who has
a recorded deed of only a fractional
part, and during the period of 20 years
has only claimed as a tenant in COM
mon with another and all his acts of
ownership have been admittedly done
as Il tenant, and not as an exclusive
owner. the statute does not apply. L.
thus becomes a question: OF fact in
each case whether; the acts of occu-
patton We're done in SubordinatiOn to
the record tile OF in reputation OF
1t. If they were done as Il dis -seiZOr
in defiance of the true owner, the stat
ute applies notwithstanding the plain
tiff may have discovered Il defect in
the defendants record title. and may
show title in himself as co-tenant.
No citation of authorities is required
to establish the proposition that ore
VINO entcls under a warranty deed %
the entire premises is never presumed
to be Il tenant in common but a tenant
in Seyeralty. BY the express terms Of
his deed he acquires not an undivided
interest. but the entire estate In the
case OF wild lands possession under
such deed is by the terms of the
statute in question, such as comports
with the ordinary management of wild
lands in Maine" and if continued fol
20 years bars the right of action.
The statute does not apply to ''ac-
tons between co-tenants." 1t is COM
petent for the plaintiff to prove thai
during all the years in question he
claimed title only to an undivided
share of the land and thus sustaine'
the relation of 4 co-tcnant. 1t i:
equally competent for the defendaEl
TO prove that during the same perot
he was not Il tenant in common will
anyone. but was claiming and occupy
ing the entire estate. With respect Il
both plaintiff and defendant the cha.
acter and quality of the possassioi
must be determined by the acts o
ownership and by the intention as dis
closed by all the circumstances
The defendant and it's predecessor
claimed and occupied the entire sout.
half of the township in question unde
recorded warranty deeds, and cut
portion of the logs sued for on tn
north half of the town under PEI
lnits from the Coburns. who ais
claimed and held that part of the tow
under recorded warranty deeds. TIL
purchasers of the south half paid SS3.
900 for the land and they and the de
PENDANT expended $4,000 more in per
manent improvements for the purpos
of taking Off the lumber. 1t was no
in controversy that this was done i
good faith and in full confidence tina
they had acquired these deeds an alb
soluto and exclusive title to the Who'll
Of the land purchased. 1t was not i
controversy that the Coburns on tn
north half. and the defendant and it
predecessors on the south half exer
cised various acts of ownership on tn
several tracts by cutting timber an
permitting operations, by leasing por
tiopc ne the. land for the erection an