Corthell v. Holmes

• Decision Date: 26 September 1894
• Parties: CORTHELL et al. v. HOLMES.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

32 A. 715

87 Me. 24

CORTHELL et al.

v. HOLMES.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Sept. 26, 1894.

(Official.)

Exceptions from supreme judicial court, Washington county.

Action by Charles A. Corthell and another against Eben A. Holmes. There was judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs bring exceptions. Exceptions sustained.

This was an action of trespass, q. c., to which the defendant pleaded the general issue and filed the following brief statement:

"And for brief statement the defendant says that the place of the alleged trespass is not, and never has been, the property of the plaintiffs, and that they have never been in possession of the same.

"The defendant further says that the place where acts complained of as the alleged trespass were committed has been recognized and used by the public, and by the defendants and their grantors, as a public way from Madison street to Water street for more than fifty years, without interruption.

"The defendant further says that plaintiffs' title deeds bound their premises upon the way aforesaid, and conveyed them no title whatever therein."

The plaintiffs demurred, as follows:

"As to the defendant's plea, in which he says he is not guilty, and thereof puts himself upon the country, the plaintiffs do the like, as required by statute.

"And the said plaintiffs, as to the defendant's brief statement of defense by him filed above, saith that the same, and the matters therein contained, in manner and form as the same are stated and set forth, are not sufficient in law to bar or preclude the plaintiffs from having or maintaining their aforesaid action against the said defendant, and the plaintiffs are not bound by law to answer the same, and this the plaintiffs are ready to verify.

"Wherefore, and by reason of the insufficiency of the said brief statement of the defense in his behalf, the plaintiffs pray judgment, and for their damages by reason of the trespasses aforesaid.

"And the plaintiffs state and show to the court the following reasons and causes of demurrer to the said statement of defense:

"For that the first ground of defense in said brief statement contains no matter not in issue under his plea of the general issue, and tends to prolixity and confusion in pleading, and is inconsistent with other parts of said statement.

"The second ground of defense alleged in said brief statement contains no matter of fact constituting a defense to this action. And the matter therein as set forth is immaterial and irrelevant.

"The third ground of defense alleged in said brief statement, as set forth therein, is inconsistent with itself, in that it states facts, and a conclusion of law inconsistent with said facts, and nothing therein alleged amounts to more than the general issue."

After joinder by the plaintiffs, the presiding justice overruled the demurrer, and ordered judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiffs took exceptions.

A. MacNichol and G. A. Curran, for plaintiffs.

E. B. Harvey, G. R. Gardner, and C. B. Rounds, for defendant.

STROUT, J. Under our statute, "the general issue may be pleaded in all cases, and a brief statement of special matter of defense, or a special plea, or double pleas in bar, may be...