Luther Soper v. Lawrence Brothers Company
Decision Date | 02 April 1906 |
Docket Number | No. 206,206 |
Citation | 201 U.S. 359,26 S.Ct. 473,50 L.Ed. 788 |
Parties | LUTHER H. SOPER, Plff. in Err. , v. LAWRENCE BROTHERS COMPANY |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. William Frye White, Taber D. Bailey, and John B. Cotton for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 360-364 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Orville Dewey Baker and Amos K. Butler for defendant in error.
[[Argument of Counsel from page 364 intentionally omitted]] Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:
This is an action of trover for logs, brought by the plaintiff in error in the supreme judicial court of Maine. The defendant admitted carrying off the logs, but set up title to the land on which they were cut, one half in itself and one half in its licensors. At the trial the plaintiff proved a prima facie title to an undivided interest in the land. The defendant relied upon the Maine Public Laws of 1895, chap. 162, § 1. With regard to that, the chief justice, presiding, instructed the jury that if the defendant and its licensors, respectively, had satisfied the conditions of § 1, it was entitled to a verdict. A verdict was found for the defendant on that ground. The ruling was taken to the full court on exceptions and a motion for a new trial. At the argument there it was urged that the statute, if applicable to the plaintiff, was contrary to the 14th Amendment, and void. But the court, adverting to the question, decided the contrary, and the defendant had judgment. 98 Me. 268, 99 Am. St. Rep. 397, 56 Atl. 908. The case then was brought to this court.
The material sections of the act of 1895 are as follows:
'Sec. 4: This act shall not apply to actions between cotenants, nor to actions now pending in court, nor to those commenced before January 1, 1900.'
The defendant and his licensors claimed under the second branch of the statute. They held under recorded warranty deeds describing wild lands taxed by the state, running back for more than twenty years, and, although it must be taken that the first deed of the series was executed by owners of a part interest only, that deed naturally was held by the state courts to be a repudiation of the tenancy in common and to lay a foundation for the working of the act. With that question we have nothing to do. The state treasurer's record showed that the defendant, its licensors, and those under whom they claim had paid the taxes thereon continuously down to the bringing of this suit. The same persons had held such exclusive, peaceable continuous, and adverse possession of the land as comports with the ordinary management of wild lands in Maine, and during the same period no former owner had paid any tax or done any other act indicative of ownership. These facts are admitted or must be assumed to be established by the verdict. This action was brought in 1902 for acts done from 1900 to 1902, after the time allowed by § 4 had run. The question is whether the statute is constitutional as applied to such a case.
Before considering the construction of the statute we will deal with an objection which seems to be made to it, even if solely prospective, as we subsequently shall explain. Suppose that the law gives no effect whatever to acts done before its passage, still it is suggested that when it went into operation the plaintiff, but for its provision, would have been in constructive possession, and the statute purported at once to disseise him and to put him to an action to recover the land. But so far as the statute is prospective it merely enacts, subject to the qualification in § 4, of which we shall speak in a moment, that certain acts, if done in the future, shall constitute a disseisin, and that the disseisin, if continued for the due time, shall ripen into title. The distinction between trespass and disseisin may be modified by statute as properly as it may be established by common law. Also statutes of limitation may be passed where formerly there were none. So far as the 14th Amendment is concerned, there is nothing to hinder a state from enacting that in future the doing of such overt acts of ownership as are possible on wild land, under a recorded deed which shows that the actor claims title, coupled with payment of the taxes, the owner meantime not paying them, and doing no act indicative of ownership, shall constitute a disseisin, or that such disseisin, if continued long enough, shall bar an action for the land. We think it unnecessary to cite the state decisions on similar statutes, or to argue that proposition at greater length. See Leffingwell v. Warren, 2 Black, 599, 17 L. ed. 261.
The main argument for the plaintiff is that if, as was the fact, the defendant had maintained the statutory occupation for...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. King
...vested the land in the commonwealth without an inquest of office for the cause of alienage." And I think the case of Soper v. Lawrence, 201 U. S. 359, 26 Sup. Ct. 473, 50 L. Ed. 788, will sustain our forfeiture laws against the charge that they are void under the fourteenth amendment. A sta......
-
State v. King
... ... Bruce McDonald and others, (11) the Turkey Land Company, and ... (12) sundry persons; decrees entered December 8, ... And I think the case of Soper v. Lawrence, 201 U.S ... 359, 26 S.Ct. 473, 50 L.Ed ... ...
-
Jacobus v. Colgate
...of N. Y., 135 N.Y. 154, 166, 31 N.E. 1035;Gilbert v. Ackerman, 159 N.Y. 118, 53 N.E. 753, 45 L.R.A. 118; Soper v. Lawrence Bros. Co., 201 U.S. 359, 370, 26 Sup.Ct. 473, 50 L.Ed. 788;Mulvey v. Boston, 197 Mass. 178, 83 N.E. 402, 14 Ann. Cas. 349. The destruction of every remedy destroys the ......
-
Mulvey v. City of Boston
... ... 55, 22 S.Ct. 573, 46 L.Ed. 804; ... Soper v. Lawrence, 201 U.S. 359-369-370, 26 S.Ct ... 473, 50 ... ...