Inhabitants of Bremen v. Inhabitants of Bristol
| Decision Date | 22 December 1876 |
| Citation | 66 Me. 354 |
| Parties | INHABITANTS OF BREMEN v. INHABITANTS OF BRISTOL. 1876. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
ON REPORT.
PETITION under R. S., c. 3, § 43, for the appointment of commissioners to determine a disputed line between the petitioning town of Bremen on the north, and the respondent town of Bristol on the south, commencing at Muscongus harbor, and extending to Biscay pond; and also from the bar between Hog island and Loud's island to the point where the dividing line between said towns strikes the westerly shore of Muscongus harbor.
The commissioners appointed under the petition, having in part performed the trust, reported that they found it necessary to settle a question of law which arose upon the construction of the statutes establishing the boundaries between the two towns before they could make a final satisfactory report, and reported specially that a case be made up for the law court for their advice and direction. The commissioners referred to a plan showing the configuration of the land and sea; and to the original act incorporating the town of Bristol, also the act to divide Bristol and incorporate Bremen, approved February 19, 1828, and the act establishing the line between Bristol and Bremen, approved March 6, 1830, and closed their special report as follows:
" The question arises upon the construction of the language used in the act of 1828, in describing the last part of the boundary line, which is in these words, viz.: ‘ crossing the bar between Hog island and Loud's island thence to the first mentioned bound.’ No question is made as to the location upon the face of the earth, of the ‘ first mentioned bound.’ It is indicated upon the plan by the letter B. in Muscongus harbor.
Bremen contends that this line should be run on a straight course from a point on the bar midway between Hog and Loud's islands, or at low water mark on Hog island, to the point B. This would leave a piece of the headland marked D. surrounded by water or land, conceded to be in Bristol, in Bremen. On the other hand, Bristol contends that this line if to be run at all as part of the line between the two towus, should be so run after crossing the bar, either by following the line of low water upon the one side of the harbor or the other, or by following the channel of the harbor, that it may reach the point B. and leave the headland wholly in Bristol.
Being apprehensive that our decision of this question might be final, we deem it expedient to submit it to the court, asking that the matter may be recommitted to us with such instructions as the court may see fit to give."
The respondents offered to prove that the point of land in dispute had been taxed by Bristol since the division of the town. For the purpose of determining the effect of such taxation, the fact may be regarded as proved, but was not admitted by the petitioners to affect any future proceedings.
The parties agreed that the case be reported to the law court for the determination of the legal questions raised.
J Baker, for the petitioners.
A. P. Gould & J. E. Moore, for the respondents.
In creating and prescribing the territorial limits of towns,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Ferrell v. Keel
-
Inhabitants of Monmouth v. Inhabitants of Leeds
...be implied. Why should it not be so? What object is there in making a return to court, if the return is not to be acted upon? In Bremen v. Bristol, 66 Me. 354, the court settled some leading questions, and recommitted the case to the commissioners. We do not see why the court should not so ......