Albro v. Matteson
| Decision Date | 10 May 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 1356.,1356. |
| Citation | 13 A.2d 391 |
| Parties | ALBRO et al. v. MATTESON et al. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Kent County; Charles A. Walsh, Judge.
Bill in equity by Alanson M. Albro and others against Arthur Raymond Matteson and others, to enjoin respondents from continued trespassing upon complainants' land. From a decree for complainants, the respondents appeal.
Affirmed, and remanded for further proceedings.
George Roche, of Providence, for complainants.
Flynn & Leighton and James W. A. Leighton, all of Providence, for respondents.
This bill in equity was brought by the complainants to enjoin respondents from continued trespassing upon complainants' land in the town of Coventry. The cause was heard in the superior court on bill, answer and proof and resulted in a decision for the complainants. On this decision a final decree was entered specifically enjoining each respondent as prayed for in the bill of complaint. From this decree respondents appealed to this court.
The complainants alleged in their bill that they were the owners of certain lots of land located in the town of Coventry and particularly described as lots numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 on a plan known as Mishnock Swamp Plat, which plat is recorded in the records of land evidence in said town. They also alleged that respondents Arthur Raymond Matteson, Susie J. Matteson and Nettie C. Northup owned land adjacent to their land; that respondent Arthur Raymond Matteson, through his servants or agents, the respondents Clifton Barber and Elmer Tarbox, had continuously, for a long period of time, entered upon complainants' land and had, without the consent and against the express direction of the complainants, cut therefrom a great quantity of standing trees, timber, wood and underwood; and that respondents were then engaged in cutting and carrying away such trees, timber and wood, and that they threatened to continue so doing.
The respondents admitted in their answer that they had cut and carried away trees, timber and wood but averred that they had cut such trees, timber, wood and underwood only from their own land, and that they had not trespassed, as alleged, on the land of the complainants.
In proof of their allegations, complainants introduced evidence of the cutting on what they claimed were their lots 7 and 8, and also evidence of another cutting on what they claimed were their lots 1 and 2. Respondents, in their turn, introduced evidence that the firstmentioned cutting was wholly on lot 9 belonging to respondents Arthur Raymond Matteson and Susie J. Matteson, and the secondmentioned cutting was on land of the respondent Nettie C. Northup. This evidence consisted of deeds and plats of the land, which were admitted as exhibits; of the testimony of witnesses as to the existence and location of certain bound stones; as to former cuttings made many years ago at the same spots as the present cuttings; and as to the location of certain landmarks and also of a road which bounded the plat on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goloskie v. La Lancette
...had surveyed. In support of his contention he refers us to Round v. Burns, 77 R.I. 135, 74 A.2d 861, 20 A.L.R.2d 1048 and Albro v. Matteson, 64 R.I. 494, 13 A.2d 391. Neither of those cases has any application to the matter in controversy. Here the respondent was seeking to have the witness......
-
Rietzel v. Cary
...evidence but only to aid in the understanding of it. In this connection we see no parallel in the present case with that of Albro v. Matteson, R.I., 13 A.2d 391, which plaintiff cites, and in which we pointed out the important part that the view by the trial court of the locus in quo must h......
- Colgan v. United Electric Rys. Co.
-
Round v. Burns, 9078
...results may follow in the consideration of the case here on an obscure and incomplete record of the evidence. See Albro v. Matteson, 64 R.I. 494, 13 A.2d 391. The plaintiff having shown cause why judgment should not be entered for the defendant, the case is remitted to the superior court fo......