Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1909-06-08

kind to show that any one was in pos
session of the tract in question for a
period of twenty-five years.
In view of such an entire absence of
any acts of ownership for such a peri
cd of time, it cannot be said that there
is any presumption of fact that there
was "exclusive and continuous" pos
session on the part of a claimant I'M
der tax title. His conduct is equally
consistent with the hypothesis that the
lnvalidity of his tax title and his con-
sequent trespasses in operating had
been discovered and that he had been
prohibited by the true owner from
making further operations on the
tract.
The Statute of 1895 tR. s. CHI 8, Sec
G5) does not apply. The Colby and
Eastman titles had not been forfeited
or cxtinguished, and must be held SUI
peror to the Coburn tax titles
The only land affected by the trust
in favor of Hill is the $500 acres orig
ina1ly owned by the Coburns, less the
100 acres sold in 1884
1t appears from the evidence under
the supplemental bill that the Eastman
titles comprising about 2575 acres were
purchased by the defendant Philbrick
October Is, 1901, for the sum of SIZES,
and that one half Of these interests
was conveyed by him to the defendant
Butler. 1t also appears that the Colby
interests embracing 1925 acres We're
purchased by Mr. Philbrick in 1905 for
$500 and that one undivided half Of
the same was subsequently conveyed
to Mr.. Butler. 1t is alleged in the bill
that at the time of these purchases
Philbrick and Butler We're the agent
and attorney respectively of the other
defendants, and that they obtained the
cOnveyanceS of the Eastman and Colby
| interests with knowledge of the trust
for the plaintiffs, and with intent to
deprive the plaintiffs of their rights
in these lands. The bill therefore
prays that Philbrick and Butler may
be ordered to convey their interests
to the plaintiffs.
1t is undoubtedly we'll settled gen.
eral rule that one co-tenant cannot
purchase an outstanding title or in
cumbrance affecting the common estate
for his own exclusive benefit, and as
sert such right against the other CO.
tenants. Such purchase will inure
" TIE DeIelll Ol IllIl anu Ills cO-leH-
ants, providing the latter elect within
a reasonable time to avail themselves
of such adverse title and contribute
their ratable share of the expense of
acquiring it.
But it is not claimed in the case at
bar that Phlbrick and Butler We're
cO-tenants with the plaintiffs when
they purchased the outstanding titles
Of the Eastman and Colby heirs. Nor
is there any legal basis for the PROPOSE
ton that at the time of these pur-
chaSes, the Coburns themselves We're
tenants in common with the Hills as
to anything more than the 400 acres
to which the Coburns had an undis-
puted title. 1t has been found that
these tax titles to the remainder of
the tract were absolutely without val
idity. The Coburns received from the
State a tax deed of it's fright, title
and interest in the tract in question.
But at the date of the deed the State
had no legal interest whatever in the
land therein described and could there
fore convey none to the Coburns, and
the Coburns thereby acquired nothing
which they could convey to the Hills.
The Coburns and Hills must be held
to he co-tenants in the 4400 acres. and
thus both We're co-tenantS with the
Eastmans and Colbys. But there was
no defect in the title to the 4400 acres,
and the interests of the Eastmans and
ColbyS were not outstanding titles as
to that acreage. If therefore the Co
burns were not under the obligation of
tenants in common towards the Hills
as to anything more than the 4400 acres
at the time of the purchase of the East
man and Colby interests, a fortiori,
the defendants Philbrick and Butler,
as their agent and attorney, owed the
Hills no such duty.
But no authority has been cited by
counsel or otherwise brought to the
attention of the court. nor has any
principle of law or equity been invoked,
which would make it the absolute duty
of the Coburns to purchase any ad-
verse title which might be asserted
either for their own benefit or the ben
eft of their co-tenants. In fact the
Coburns did not purchase the out