Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1914-12-14
Piscataquis County.

Frank E. Mace, land agent VS.. me
Ship Pond Co. Rescript, Cornish. J.
In a bill in equity TO recover, upon
an accounting, the value of the stump
age cut and taken by the defendant
from certain public lots in the Planta-
ton of Elliotsville the same having
been referred to a master to deter
mine the quantities and values and
the defendant claiming that no re-
covery can be had for stumpage cut
more than six years prior to the date
of the bill. Held:
l. That under the deed from the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts to
the Trustees of the Saco Free Bridge
Fund, dated October %, 1929. convey
ing the Saco Tract 50 called, the fee
vested in the Trustees with a condition
subsequent annexed to the grant.
2. That this condition imposed upon
the grantees, their successors. and
assigns, the duty of causing the pub
lie lots therein mentioned TO be set out.
8. That Public Law, 1850. CHI. 1876.
Sec. g. authorized the State Land
Agent to institute proceedings for
the location of reserved lots where
they had not been located by the
grantee for the purposes expressed in
the grant.
4. That this Act neither removed nor
lightened the burden already resting
upon the grantee, nor upon this de-
PENDANT as a successor in title.
5. That the defendant, having enter
ed upon the entire and undivided tract
and cut and carried away timber
therefrom regardless of the imposed
condition, cannot now successfully set
up laches on the part of the State as
defense to the repayment of the
amount due. The defendant does not
come into court with clean hands.
6. That the other tract in question,
the State Tract so called was acquired
by the State of Maine from the Com
monwealth of Massachusetts under the
Act of Separation.
| 7. That the State of Maine by Stat
utes 1924, Oh. ESQ., and 1928, Oh. 293,
enacted by general law that there
should be reserved in every township
Suitable for settlement, whether timber
land or otherwise, one thousand acres
| of land to be appropriated to such pub
| lie uses, for the exclusive benefit or
| such town, as the Legislature should
| thereafter direct.
| g. That although the subsequent
deed of this tract from the State con-
| tanned no express reservation of lots
for public uses, the grantee is pre-
sumed to have known of this general
law and took title subject to the public
rights therein provided for, and the
! successors in title are also bound
! thereby.
| g. That the application of laches In
equity is largely a matter of judicial
discretion, dependent upon the facts
and circumstances of each particular
case; and when, as here, lapse OF
| time has not changed the situation OF
the parties and one is asked to pay
what is admittedly due and should
have been paid long before, laches can
not be successfully invoked.
| 10. That the plaintiff should be
charged for it's proportional part of all
expenses incurred by the defendant
! in connection with the preservation Of
the common property and for the COM
mon benefit of all persons interested
| therein.
| IL That this rule includes fire pro-
lection, surveying of lines and seal
| ing, but excludes taxes Tin this case),
| services Of defendants general man
ager and legal expenses.
Il. That on this basis $50 should be