Young v. Pritchard

Decision Date28 December 1883
PartiesMARY A. YOUNG v. FRANCIS A. PRITCHARD.
CourtMaine Supreme Court

ON REPORT.

The case and material facts are stated in the opinion.

Davis and Bailey, for the plaintiff, contended tat the judgment in the action of trespass brought by the defendant against the plaintiff's husband and grantor the record of that case showing that the defendants there justified under a plea of soil and freehold, and the verdict upon which judgment was rendered being not guilty, was a bar to this action.

The effect of that judgment was to establish title in the plaintiff's grantor at the time of the commencement of the action of trespass, and that title the plaintiff now holds. The issue of soil and freehold concludes the defendant here from disputing her title at that date. If, therefore, the defendant would impeach the plaintiff's title, it must be by matters arising subsequent to that time, because that judgment is conclusive upon the question of soil and freehold between the parties thereto and their privies. Arnold v. Arnold, 17 Pick. 4; Outram v. Morewood, 3 East. 346.

As to what was the matter in issue if the record does not show it evidence aliunde may be produced. As remarks PARKER, C. J., in King v. Chase, 15 N.H. 9," the declaration and pleadings may show specifically what this is (the matter in issue) or they may not. If they do not the party may adduce other evidence to show what was in issue, and thereby make the pleadings as if they were special…. It may be shown by parol evidence, if necessary, upon what ground the verdict proceeded.

If the evidence in the former case were before the court, it would readily be seen that the title to the land in controversy was the matter in issue, and that the pivotal point of the decision was the location of the line between two contiguous properties. The reported case, Pritchard v. Young, 74 Me. 419, is made a part of this case and definitely settles this point.

That becomes the main question in the determination of this case. See Bigelow on Estoppel (2d ed.), 91.

N. Wilson, for the defendant.

BARROWS J.

This is a writ of entry dated March 17, 1880, wherein the plaintiff demands against the defendant, possession of a parcel of land in Greenbush, " being a part of lot numbered 2, in mile square numbered 3, Range 3, according to survey of Tarbox; the same being a strip of land lying next south of a line running from East to West, dividing said Lot No. 2 into North and South halves respectively, the said strip herein demanded being so much of the South half thus determined as said Pritchard has enclosed, and now occupies to the exclusion of the demandant."

The defendant pleaded the general issue with a brief statement denying plaintiff's title and claiming that defendant has title in fee simple by deed of warranty of same land conveyed by Isaac Young, plaintiff's husband, to Thomas L. Young, August 13, 1855, and of all which said T. L. Young " then occupied," and of all enclosed and occupied by himself at the date of plaintiff's writ, and further brief statements claiming title to the same by adverse possession in himself and his grantors since 1845, and asserting that he and his grantors since November of that year, have been in the continued and adverse possession and occupancy of " all that part of said lot northerly of the line indicated by the Bagley fence so called" --that he " claims to own it by deed and by possession; and that it is the same identical half part, more or less, measured out, surveyed and agreed upon in the original division of said lot between Isaac Young and Thomas L. Young."

When the case came up for trial at the January term, 1883, the plaintiff put in subject to the defendant's objections: 1. The record of a judgment rendered at the same January term, in an action of trespass q. c. brought by this defendant Pritchard, November 6, 1879, against Isaac Young, this plaintiff's husband and one Buxton, who justified as Young's servant, wherein Pritchard alleged that those defendants on May 1, 1878, and divers days and times between that day, and the date of his writ, broke and entered his close " situate on the Northerly side of the Bagley fence, so called, on said Lot No. 2, and took down and removed said fence 15 to 20 feet over and upon plaintiff's field," trod down the grass, & c.; to which said Young and Buxton pleaded not guilty, with a brief statement that " the acts complained of were committed, if at all, upon a narrow strip or gore of land lying immediately North of the Bagley fence on said Lot No. 2, mile square 3, Range 3, as set out in plaintiff's writ and South of a line extending from East to the West lines of said Lot No. 2, dividing the same into North and South halves, respectively," in which strip of land Isaac Young claimed soil and freehold for himself and this plaintiff, Mary A. Young, as tenants in common, and title therein in himself and said Mary as his co-tenant--Buxton justifying as his servant. Upon pleadings thus framed, the general issue was joined, and the verdict was simply not guilty. Pritchard filed a motion for new trial which was overruled by the full court, and judgment entered up at the January term, 1883, (which was the trial term of this suit) for the defendants for their costs.

2. The plaintiff offered in evidence subject to defendant's objections, a quitclaim deed from her husband, the above named Isaac Young, to herself, dated November 13, 1879 conveying all the grantor's " right, title and interest in the South half of the same Lot No. 2," according to Tarbox's survey--" The north half having been conveyed by me to Thomas Young by deed of warranty, August 13, 1855." Upon this testimony the demandant rested. Thereupon the defendant offered to prove...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Bray v. Spencer
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • July 19, 1951
    ...not settle the title.' Kimball v. Hilton, 92 Me. 214, 42 A. 394, 396; Susi v. Davis, 133 Me. 354, 177 A. 610, 97 A.L.R. 1222; Young v. Pritchard, 75 Me. 513. The case at bar is a real action wherein Lafayette S. Bray is plaintiff and Ella Spencer defendant. They own adjoining lots. The disp......
  • Susl v. Davis
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • March 19, 1935
    ...and proof of which it could not have been rendered. Burlen v. Shannon, 99 Mass. 200, 96 Am. Dec. 733; Hill v. Morse, 61 Me. 541; Young v. Pritchard, 75 Me. 513; Smith v. Brunswick, 80 Me. 189, 13 A. 890; Inhabitants of Embden v. Lisherness, 89 Me. 578, 36 A. 1101, 56 Am. St. Rep. 442; Kimba......
  • Hardison v. Jordan
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • December 12, 1946
    ...raised here and is not a bar to these actions. Susi v. Davis, 134 Me. 308, 186 A. 707; Kimball v. Hilton, 92 Me. 214, 42 A. 394; Young v. Pritchard, 75 Me. 513. Earl K. Jordan v. Newell G. Hardison. This is a real action and was entered at the September Term of the Superior Court for Hancoc......
  • Susi v. Davis
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • August 11, 1936
    ...may have had rightful possession. Title was not necessarily determined. Kimball v. Hilton, 92 Me. 214, 221, 42 A. 394. In Young v. Pritchard, 75 Me. 513, this court "To raise an estoppel, it is not sufficient to show that the matter in controversy may have been determined in the former liti......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT