Collins v. Taylor

• Decision Date: 11 September 1906
• Citation: 101 Me. 542,64 A. 946
• Parties: COLLINS v. TAYLOR.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

64 A. 946

101 Me. 542

COLLINS

v. TAYLOR.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Sept. 11, 1906.

Report from Supreme Judicial Court, Penobscot County.

Action by Anthony Collins against Frank Taylor. Case reported. Judgment for plaintiff.

Action of forcible entry and detainer brought by the plaintiff against the defendant to recover a certain dwelling house, situated in Old Town, and standing on land of one Lucy A. Batchelder. The writ was sued out of the Old Town municipal court under the date of May 21, 1901. Plea, the general issue, with a brief statement alleging the title of the dwelling house, as well as the land on which it stands, to be in the aforesaid Lucy A. Batchelder, and under whom the defendant claimed to occupy by the consent of his wife, who was the tenant of the said Lucy A. Batchelder.

At the conclusion of the testimony it was agreed that the case should be reported to the law court "for determination on so much of the evidence as is legally admissible."

Argued before WISWELL, C. J., and EMERY, WHITEHOUSE, SAVAGE, PEABODY, and SPEAR, JJ.

J. F. Gould, for plaintiff. Clarence Scott and P. H. Gillin, for defendant

SAVAGE, J. Action of forcible entry and detainer to recover a house standing on the land of a third party. In a brief statement pleaded under the general issue the defendant avers that the building, as well as the land on which it stands, is the estate and freehold of Lucy A. Batchelder, in whom is the sole title to the premises, and under whom the defendant claims a right to occupy by the consent of his wife, who is the tenant of Batchelder. The plaintiff claims title under a foreclosed chattel mortgage of the house, given by the defendant.

To the maintenance of the suit, the defendant's counsel, in argument, interposes one objection only, and that objection we will proceed to consider. It is that the case fails to show affirmatively that the plaintiff has title to the house in question. It is not in controversy, as appears by the defendant's brief that the defendant built the house on the Batchelder land. But it is claimed that it is not shown whether it was built under the license or permission of the owner of the land, or under a contract on the part of the defendant to purchase the land, and so became the personal property of the defendant or whether it was built without any permission whatever, and so became a part of the real estate of Mrs. Batchelder; hence it is contended that the plaintiff has failed to show that the defendant owned the house which he mortgaged, or that the plaintiff got any title under the mortgage.

The record before us is made up entirely of documentary evidence. The plaintiff introduced a chattel mortgage of the house, from the defendant to William M. Bean, dated November 9, 1891, together with the note which it secured. He then introduced a foreclosure of the mortgage, recorded July 18, 1893, and a bill of sale of the house from Bean to himself, dated May 15, 1901. He also introduced a writ of forcible entry and detainer, brought by Lucy A. Batchelder against the defendant May 23, 1894, to which further reference will be made. The defendant showed that...