The independent-reporter. [volume] (Skowhegan, Me.) 1909-1955, 1919-08-07
IMPORTANT RESCRIPT RECEIVED
CONTINUED from First Page
MOTION

In the argument before The La"
Court ii was conceded that the PLAN
Tiff had acquired title to fifty acres
of field and pasture land, being Par
GELS 2 and 5 on Buswell's plan. The
controversy, therefore, relates only
TO about forty acres of woodland.
The woodland is only in small part
fenced No color of title under re
corded deeds is relied on by the plain
tiff. II he has gained title by ad-
verse possession to the land now in
dispute it must be by reason OF Re
vised Statutes, chapter 10, section
10, which reads as follows:
"ro constitute a disseizin, or such
exclusive and adverse possession OF
lands as to bar or limit the right OF
the true owner thereof to recover
them, such lands need not be sur
rounded with fences or rendered IN
accessible by water; but it IS sufll-
cient, II the possession. occupation
and Improvement are open, notorious
and COMFORTING with the ordinary
management of farm; although that
part of the same, which composes the
woodland belonging to such farm and
used herewith as a wood lot, 1t not
SO enclosed.
This statute does not dispense with
any of the elements necessary to make
possessory title. Tilton V. Hunter
"a Maine, 80. While color of title
is not essential and enclosure by
fences not necessary acts of possess
sion nut be shown so open. notorious
and continuous that the owner view
ing the land may be presumed to know
of the use and of its character and
extent. Occasional trespasses will
not ripen into title Adams V. Clapp.
81 Me- 316; Smith v. Sawyer, 10S
Maine, 4S5
We're the Court passing originally
upon the facts it might find against
the plaintiffs contention but the YER
dict of the jury is not so clearly
wrong as to require reversal. 1t APP
pears that with negligible exceptions
all the wood used on the farm for fuel
fencing and repairs during nearly half
a century was cut on these wood lots.
There was evidence of wood cutting
from time to time on all parcels of
land. Mr.. Buswell testified that the
land appeared like land that had been
cut over.
The defendant contends that the
use was interrupted. The defendants
predecessor operated upon the land in
1884. The defendant did some lum-
bering there in 1910. Between 1883,
when Samuel Holden settled upon the
property, and 1910 there are two
periods of more than twenty years
during which such use as the Hold
ems made of the property was APP
parently uninterrupted
The defendant claims that outside
the field and pasture the property con-
sisted of Wild land and that the stat
ute above quoted does not apply. But
wild land has been defined as land
in a wilderness state, not used in
connection with improved estates"
Stevens Y. Owen, % Maine, 100.
When land Is contiguous to improv-
ed and cultivated land and commonly
used Herewith for fuel, fencing, re-
pairs or pasturing, it no longer has
the character of wild land. Stevens
v. Owen, supra; Chase V. Alley, So
Maine, pa.
Again the defendant urges that the
plaintiff was but an occasional tres
passer, or, at all events, that the de-
PENDANT was justified in so regarding
him. In this connection the evidence
relating to taxation is significant.
In an action involving title the