Andrews v. King
Decision Date | 04 June 1925 |
Citation | 129 A. 298 |
Parties | ANDREWS v. KING. |
Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Agreed statement from Supreme Judicial Court, York County, at Law.
Trespass quare clausum fregit by Arthur W. Andrews against Richard King, submitted on agreed statement of facts. Judgment of nonsuit ordered.
Argued before WILSON C. J., and PHILBROOK, DUNN, MORRILL, DEASY, and STURGIS, JJ.
Leroy Haley, of Biddeford, for plaintiff.
Robert B. Seidel, of Biddeford, for defendant.
This is an action of trespass quare clausum fregit, submitted upon an agreed statement of facts.
The plaintiff is the owner of certain land on the Saco river, where the tide ebbs and flows, with the flats contiguous thereto and lying in front thereof, to ordinary low-water mark, which is less than 100 rods from high-water mark. The Saco river is a public highway, and the acts complained of were committed between high and low water mark. The parties agree in their statement as follows:
Conceding that his title to the flats adjoining the upland owned by him is subject to the public right declared by the Colonial Ordinance of 1641—47, plaintiff thus states his contention upon the brief:
"Plaintiff does not contend that the public have no right to pass and repass over the flats when not covered by water for the purposes reserved by the ordinance, but we do contend that that reservation is limited to 'passage of boats or other vessels to other men's houses and lands,' or for the purposes of fishing and fowling."
If we understand his contention aright, the passage of boats or other vessels over defendant's flats must, in his view, be by boats or other vessels whose destination is "other men's houses and lands." Counsel say in argument:
We think this contention unsound. The well-settled construction of the Colonial Ordinance, consistently adhered to by the courts of this state and Massachusetts, is this:
"That it vested the property of the flats in the owner of the upland in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bell v. Town of Wells
...thereto. For example, the operator of a power boat for hire may pick up and land his passengers on the intertidal land, Andrews v. King, 124 Me. 361, 129 A. 298 (1925); and "navigation" also includes the right to travel over frozen waters, French v. Camp, 18 Me. 433 (1841), to moor vessels ......
-
William A. Mcgarvey Jr. v. Whittredge
...A.2d 303, 305, 307; Norton v. Town of Long Island, 2005 ME 109, ¶¶ 21, 32, 883 A.2d 889, 896, 899; see generally Andrews v. King, 124 Me. 361, 362–63, 129 A. 298, 298–99 (1925); see also Marshall v. Walker, 93 Me. 532, 536–37, 45 A. 497, 498 (1900), and cases cited therein. As was written l......
-
Almeder v. Town of Kennebunkport
...at 173. For example, the operator of a power boat for hire may pick up and land his passengers on the intertidal land, Andrews v. King, 124 Me. 361, 129 A. 298 (1925); "navigation" also includes the right to travel over frozen waters, French v. Camp, 18 Me. 433 (1841), to moor vessels and d......
-
Almeder v. Town of Kennebunkport
...at 173. For example, the operator of a power boat for hire may pick up and land his passengers on the intertidal land, Andrews v. King, 124 Me. 361,129 A. 298 (1925); "navigation" also includes the right to travel over frozen waters, French v. Camp, 18 Me. 433 (1841), to moor vessels and di......