Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1921-12-08
JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFFS
IN MDR0SC06GIn CASE
AGAINST 4. & <. RAILROAD

II se~sses'0 aI'0 HtVVeSOOH S0oH~
/ ties
j Judgment IS given for the plaintiffs
in the Androscoggin county case, Kate
B. Clifford. Cora B. scruton ct al. VS..
the AndroscoEgin & Kennebec Street
Railroad Co., BY a rescript handed
down Wednesday by the law court.
The rescript which was drawn by AS
sociate Justice Albert NJ. Spear OF
Gardiner. reads as follows:
4 On October rs. 1908. the plaintiff
leased to the lewiston Augusta and
Waterville Railway for term of 20
years, at an annual rental Of $4,000, d
brick block in Lewiston located at the
corner of Maine and Lisbon streets.
December 16, 1918. the L., 81. & w.
st. Ry. by local process was placed IL
the hands Of receivers, who qualified
and acted until discharged by the
court.
On June 10. 1919, leave was granted
by the court to the Old Colony Trust
Company. trustees under the mortgage
for the bondholders Of the railroad, TO
file bill for foreclosure.
On July 81. 1919 a decree Of fore
closure and sale Of the property Of the
railroad was entered.
Under the bill and foreclosur. all the
necessary steps We're taken for the
purpose OF forming a corporation OF
bondholders. in accordance with the
provisions of r. S. chapters 81 and 81
the completion was effectuated ON
September 80, 1919. in the organization
OF the Androscoggin & Kcnnebec Rail
way Co. Thus the old corporation was
absorbed by the bondholders and reap-
peared in a new organization under tine
name of the Androscoggin & Kennebec
hallway Co. Immediately upon the
appointment or new receivers the
piaintin claims forfeiture Of the
tease and thereupon the receivers no.
tined the plaintiffs of their intention
10 exercise their option to assume the
lease and continue in possession.
Ihere is no controversy between the
parties as to the particular provision
IN the lease the Interpretation and
legal effect Of which is determined nv
thelr respective rights. 1t reads as
| follows:
provided always. and these pres
ehts are upon this condition. that in
case OF breach of any of the coven
ANS 70 De observed on the part of the
Lessees or OF those claiming under
0 1t, or in case the estate hereby created
shall be taken from the Lessee or
a those claiming under it bv process
o OF law or by proceedings in bankrupt
G" ana insolvency, or otherwise, the
Lessees or their heirs or assigns may
0 while the fault or neglect continues.
0 or at any time after such taking bv
process OF law and notwithstanding
and license or waiver of any prior
breach OF condition, without any no.
tlce or demand, enter upon the prem
Uses and thereby determine the estate
hereby created and may thereupon ey-
pei and remove fOrcibly If necessary,
the Lessee and those claiming under
it,"
HEIDI l.. That there was a forfeit
= ture of the lease.
Held. 2. That there was no waiv-
er of the forfeiture.
Held. 3. That the plaintiffs are
entitled to receive rent of the prem
! Uses from the 10th day of March, 1921,
the date OF entry and demand of
- possession by the plaintiffs, at the
. rate OF six thousand dollars a year.
r Cumberland Case
. The appeal of the defendant in the
: Cumberland county case, Edgar S.
;. Norton, in equity. VS.. Herbert l..
: Berry. is dismissed by a rescript
which was drawn by Associate JUS
tice George M. Hanson of Belfast.
This is bill in equity to establish
that the conveyances under which
S the defendant holds title to the
premises described in the bill consti-
tute an equitable mortgage, and for
redemption, and is before the law
= court on appeal from the decree of
. the sitting Justice sustaining the
bill, referring the matter to a master
Z to take an account of the sum equt-
i, ably due the defendant, and direct
ing procedure for redemption, and es-
tablishing defendants title in default
( of redemption by the plaintiff.
r The rescript says in conclusion:
The evidence is clear and convinc-
ing that the deed of September s.,
+ 1919, was and is an equitable mort
Y gage between the parties. The de-
PENDANT admits that the relation of
debtor and creditor suhsisted for a
!, long period, as pointed out herein.
The evidence fails to show any change
4 in that relation. On the contrary, the
evidence is overwhelming that there
was no change, and that the equities
: in this case are with the plaintiff.
Aroostook Case
The motion Of the defendant is sus-
tanned and a new trial granted in the
I Aroostook county case, Harry E.
Crandall VS.. Walter D. Hines, director
: general of railroads. by a rescript
which was drawn by Associate Justice
Spear, as follows:
This is an action to recover dam
ages for injury to property through
the alleged negligence of the operative
of the Bangor and Aroostook Rail-
road.
On the 9th day Of November. 1919,
c about 10 minutes past six o'clock, the
plaintiffs son, minor a little over
Is years of age, was driving his
; fathers team when the accident, by
collision, at a grade crossing, occurred
by which the wagon was demolished
-aa-naA. a>n>AA