Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1920-10-23

ms IS an appear from tHe uHdi
decree of the sitting Justice dismis-
sing bill in equity brought to COM
pei specific performance of writ
ten contract between appellants aid
defendants intestate. Held:
l.. The sitting Justice made no
finding Of fact. but having before
him all the witnesses and documen-
tary evidence. and considering as he
must have the appellee's claim of
fraud. rescission and abandonment.
it is very clear that the decree is
well founded. and especially so upon
the grounds of rescission on the part
OF defendants intestate, and aband-
onment upon the part of the appel
lants.
+ 2. The last section of the contract
declares that the intention Of the
agreement was to make a final set
tiement of all matters which are now
somewhat in doubt. and to form a
basis for the settlement of the es-
tate of Lucy A. Snow,"-an intent
necessarily to settle with defendants
intestate during her life, and not
with her administrator,-and to set
tie in a reasonable time an intestate
estate then being settled in probate
court. Waiting more than four years
under such circumstances is in itself
evidence of abandonment.
8. In an appeal from the decision
of a sitting Justice. the appellant has
the burden of showing the decree to
be clearly wrong, especially when the
credibility of witnesses is an issue.
In this case the credibility of the
witnesses was an important issue
The sitting Justice had the advantage
of observation of the persons testi-
tying, and their testimony weighed
by him must have aided in forming
his judgment. 1t is sufficient to say
that the testimony as a whole salts
fies US that the decree of the sitting
Justice is justified by the record.
Appeal dismissed.
Penobscot County.
. Charles D. Foulkes vs.. George A.
Nevers. ct al. Rescript. Hanson. ].
This is real action brought to re-
cover a certain tract of land in the
Northwest part of Township No s.
Range Z. W. E. L. s.. known as the
"Seboeis Farm" according to plan
and survey of said Township made
by Frank Fisk. containing three hun
dred and twenty (320) acres more or
less, in Penobscot County, and comes
before this Court on report
The plaintiff claims under "a deed
from the Treasurer of the State of
Maine, obtained through a sale of
said land for the State and County
Taxes assessed thereon for the year
1907, and that the proceedings here
in were in accordance with the pro-
visions of r. S. of 1903. Chap. 9. Sec
Al ct Seq. as amended by the Laws
OF 1905. Chaps. SO and $50, and Chap.
226 of 1909.
The plaintiff says that ha has es-
tablished his title in full compliance
with the requirements Of the statute,
and that no defect therein fatal to
such title is. or can be shown.
The defendants counsel in their
brief claim that in several respects
the substantial requirements of the
statutes authorizing sale of land for
taxes in unincorporated places have
not been strictly complied with.
Ii Will be necessary to consider
but one OF the provisions and plain
tiff's proceedings. Hereunder r. S.
Chap 9. Sec. AZ. 1905. c. SO. sec. 2.
1909, c. 235. 1916. chap. 10. sec. A.
provides: When the legislature as
sesses such State tax, the treasurer
of State shall within three months
thereafter cause the lists of such as
sessments. together with the amounts
Of the county tax of said lands SO
certified to him, both for the cur
rent year, to be advertised for three
weeks successfully in the State pa :
per. and in some newspaper. il any.
printed in the county in which the
land lies, and shall cause like adver-
tisement of the lists of such State
and county taxes for the following
year to be made within three months
after one year from such assess
ment"
The record shows that the land in
question was described in the adyer-
tisement of the list of the assessment
as follows:
"Penobscot County r. wv. Ell
s. 800, s. go" and the list was signed
by Pascal P. Gilmore, Treasurer of
State. We think the land demanded
was not sufficiently described in the
list so advertised. and in conse-
quence the plaintiff has failed to
show compliance with the statute.
and consequently cannot prevail in
this action.
1T has been uniformly held in nu-
merous decisions of this court that
such description in a deed is utter
ly Intellectual to pass any title to anv
specific tract or acre in the township
or to convey any title whatever. -
Larrabee V. Hodgkins, s. Me. 412:
Griffin v. Crippin. so Me. go: Moul-
ton Y. Egery. rs Me. 4s5: Skowheran
Savings Bank V. Parsons, Sc Me. 514.
Niflet v. Mullen. 95 Me. 400: Powers
V. Sawyer. 100 Me- $50. See Hatch
y. Hollingsworth & Whitney Co. ia
Me. 255.
The entry will be.
Judgment for the Defendant.