The independent-reporter. [volume] (Skowhegan, Me.) 1909-1955, 1919-08-07

mere fact that taxes are assessed
against person in possession OF land
is utterly inconsefaeutal II most il
SHOWS The opinion Of the assessors in
r. rzI>. - - t..Ia and fheir opinion
is mma,srlul. smith y Booth Broth
err. IL Maine. 3es.
Payment of taxes upon land is moi
evidence Of possession. Smith '
Booth Brothers. supra.
j But payment of tax. upon land Is
evidence of a claim Of title. DAILY '.
chiIdren's Home. 1l3 Maine. Us; Car
Ter v Clark. ~ Maine, rs. If such
payment IS known 10 and aequiesced
in by The owner il becomes more sign
ideant
Turning to the facts OF this case il
appears that in every year from 1888
to date the plaintif has paid taxes IN
+ Deunistown Plantation upon one hun
dred acres. or more The land was
not described in the assessment books
bur the defendant admits his know
ledge that the plaintiff was paying
taxes on the one hundred acres in
dispute See testimony of defendant
as follows:
% Now as d matter of fact, have
you not known that Moses Holden
was paying taxes on that so-called
Holden farm, and that you were not
paying taxes on it,
No, not that | wasn't. | know
he has been paying taxes, ! assume
he has been paying taxes on 100 acres
@ You knew that?
A Yes, sir.
! O Didn't you understand it was
that particular farm that he was pay
| ing taxes on?
A suppose it would be round
about somewhere there.
! @ Didn't you understand that it
was that farm that he was paying
taxes on?
A Why. yes, sure.
@ Sure?
A Sure
Paying taxes upon land year after
wear is inconsistent with the charac-
ter Of an occasional trespasser. Such
payment by an occupant who Is not
tenant is an assertion OF title. 1t
may transmute mere possession into
a disseizin.
From the evidence and the de-
PENDANTS admissions the jury were
authorized to find that the plaintiff
during more than twenty years claim
ed title to this wood land and with
out interruption used it as farmers
ordinarily use their wood lots and
that the defendant knew of and
acquesced in such use.
EXCEPTIONS
The Presiding Justice permitted the
plaintiff to introduce evidence that
Omar Clark, one of the defendants
predecessors in title, in exploring and
surveying the plantation and comput-
ing it's area deducted fro mthe acre
age the Samuel Holden farm. Clark
was not then owner of the property,
but was exploring with the view of
purchasing it and with others he did
later acquire it. We think that the
evidence was admissible.
TO make title by adverse possession
1t Is not necessary to bring home
to the owner actual knowledge of the i
possession. Green v. Horn, 112 n. |
Y. S. 993; Land Company V. Powers
Heirs CKy) 144 S. w. 2. 1t is suf- |
ficient to prove acts of possession sol
open and notorious that the owners
knowledge of them and of their adj
verse character may be presumed.
Morse V. Williams, 62 Maine, 446
Roberts V. Richards, "a Maine, 10;
Carter V. Clark, 90 Maine, 230; Hoop
err v. Leavitt, 100 Maine, II. But
actual knowledge may be shown.
Wherever it is competent to prove a
fact presumptiyely it may be proved
directly Thompson V. Logan (Ala) +
81 Srn. 9S5; McCaughn V Young
Miss 81 Srn. S39; Lasley '. Knis-
kern (Mich.) 115 N. w. OIL.
The evidence excepted to tended
to prove that Clark before his pur-
chase but while exploring the land in I
view of acquiring it, had actual know /
ledge of Holden's possession and of
the adverse character of thai pos
session. That knowledge may fairly
be presumed to have continued until |
Clark became one of the owners.
Motion and Exceptions overruled.
HIGHWAY SITUATION ~ MAINE
Continued from First Page
| with tho work staDtly i'm the hands |