Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1906-12-17

authorized to direct a verdict for either
party, when contrary verdict could not
be sustained by the evidence, or if IN"
plaintiffs evidence, when taken to be
true. is not sufficient H. make out Il priI'la
facie case, the court MAY properly dir ct
a verdict fer the defendant.
But whcE the case is doubtful and
when different conclusions might to-
drawn from the ovdrnc" b. different
minds: the facts should b.. Submitted 10
the jury.
There are four classes Of property
which are the suhjccl matter OF this a"-
ton: 1.-The material which had entered
into The construction Of Il greenhouse
which the plaintiffs vendor. James Fylc,
had placed on land of his son. Albert q.
FyleS with his consent; 2-potted plants;
3-growinS stock plants; 4-loam prepared
for gardening purposes
The c"rrectress Of tn" ruling dtpand|
upon two propositions namely: v heth.r
he evidence that was submitted by tn.
plaUtiii. assumed to be true shows
pr.ma faci" thai the defendant forcillv
took ana withheld from liz. plaintiff ;.nI
convert i. 81 took ana CARR. Il away any
Of this property; ana whvth.r such tVi
dehce So Prov :, that the plaintiff. al ne
tine Of The all, gee! taking had iiiI. ;taI
tn right 81 possession To any part there
Of.
4 r"sum" of tic evidence shows thlt
the Dlaintih purchased a. Jt!n,s T.-l'.S
Il greenhouse with is contents, plan =
not severed from TIE SOFT and llIm pre-
par.d ipr 'iS,. i'll ti,. business " .lr,it.t-
In" II" land on which Tie sfrIr.uI,.
was erected had beer rrlViuu-Iv ntrJ-
EaE"d hv th" lic''ns"r To- tn d"frud.'n'.
the m6r;ra-'' WI, subsequently, lni,cins-
I'd ana ~" equity uilrch;iS, "a Et tE.. ~
lcndIut. ana tn" r"miG,.; ustry irr 4
Tim" occupied Icy jam; I'yi..S IrG .,o -
his t~naHts - VII. Tn Tenancy having
been terminal 4! fNl..,' ~uil -nId tiir ~ n
SnnIl lrr-rrtN IN ut:-NIi,n H. til,. u! I'LL
tiff. wl'r comm. ~, d. t. ""mo,,. tin. .;I:Ii.
lie took 'i'NH III" .,r'--u.IntIS" and r.-Lluv-
I'D IN" contents. and WAS n th.. ilrt 81
hauling awIy ;hc glass frames when rr.-
Nrrt-d ~ IN" .l.n,iaut. w.!p riuin'
that II was par; "I his realty. \. :, th''
interference 'h' ildi.I.i0 t'siiii. that IT,
ria'". wh.s' n" drfrntn,.t t'.<tiiI'ss ,ltlt
IN forbade th" removal "f aiiy Winch
wa paII 81 N" realty.
Th"re was ".h, 'vldcrr" which fenced
tp C"rro1n'at" IN" testimony Of each. Il
IN" plaintiff had the right ID understand
from I'll" words and acts ~ q. ,irl,ni
an; ;ha' Ia. intended % talt. ;'ui dctdin
from him not ONLY the fame of IT,
gry"HhGuSe but III" other Property sr,ar.-
iird ~ ~" writ. jh'.v were ,.ui..,l"nt 'h
Am exercise Of control "y,r m. property
.!""nSiSt-'d Hiti: tii'. pi"Iu;iii i"'-~'..:t.I-
~ and properly rights tl"r..iu: or at lr,>t
II IS EnI Cladr that his iuic:c..c. Was t,.t
warranted ANA tn. disput.d QUc< ion
should nave been submitted to tho IUiy.
IL III plaintiff WAS at The time the Owner
of ANY Of TIN. specified GLASSES of prop
t-rty. as against the irupri, tor al thr
land
IT,, greenhouse which I'm y..n,1or ..ra,..
cd was as between MIN ;ud III. lir,,1snr
personal property. and tn" status wo:;li
be rr.s,,rl,yd to remain even nrr,irst y
subsequent purchase without nO.i,n IN,
it had been erected wilii tho owners con-
Srnt. The same. would h.. trrIc i'm regard
to InneXatiOnS made with tn" @ tI?S"r. OF
a MORTGAGE. And such intention Of tn.
parties may be inferred from ctrcunn-
stances.
In Sor1c I,,riS1ir.io,7c n ic I.lI +r,o+
even without their consent or acrrcmcnt
the rights Of prior mortgages are SUP
Inct 10 those having rights in m. fivt,Irns
mt in others Including NI1;nn II MI