Magoon v. Davis

• Decision Date: 13 January 1892
• Citation: 24 A. 809,84 Me. 178
• Parties: MAGOON v. DAVIS.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

24 A. 809

84 Me. 178

MAGOON

v. DAVIS.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Jan. 13, 1892.

(Official.)

Report from supreme judicial court, Somerset county.

Writ of entry by Charles H. Magoon against Edmund Davis. On report of evidence. Judgment for defendant.

Walton & Walton, for plaintiff.

Merrill & Coffin, for defendant.

LIBBEY, J. This is a writ of entry. The parties own adjoining lots in the towns of Skowhegan and Cornville. The contention between them is the location of the dividing line between their lots. The issue, as made up by the pleadings, presents the question of title to a narrow strip of land, from one to two rods in width, which the plaintiff alleges is a part of his lot, and is in the possession of the defendant. The plaintiff takes upon himself the burden of proving that he has the title to the strip of land in controversy, and, having the title, has a right to a judgment for its possession as against the defendant, who he says has no title but that of possession.

The title deeds to the lots of land owned by the parties recognize the dividing line to be the line between the towns of Skowhegan and Cornville. The earliest title deed put in evidence is of the defendant's lot, dated September 12, 1827. The real boundary by the title deeds, tracing the title through the several parties owning prior to the parties in this suit, is the location of the line between the towns named in 1827. Neither party has put in evidence the acts incorporating the two towns named, which we assume describe the line between the towns, so we have not that piece of evidence before us.

In 1877 proceedings were had in the supreme judicial court, on the petition of the selectmen of the town of Cornville, for the establishment and marking of the line between the towns of Cornville and Skowhegan, under the provisions of our statute, on the ground that the two towns were not able to agree upon the location of the line. After notice to the two towns, a commission was appointed by the court to examine and locate the lines between the towns. They did so, and made their report to the court, which was duly accepted. The plaintiff claims that the line, as marked and located by that commission, is conclusive evidence of its location as between himself and the defendant.

This the defendant's counsel do not admit, but maintain that the report of the commissioners is not only not conclusive between adjoining owners, but that it is not competent evidence upon that issue.

It does not appear that these parties had any notice of the proceedings of the commissioners, or had any opportunity to be heard before them or in the court; and therefore, while, until a new commission shall be appointed under the statute to locate the line, the line thus located is conclusive between the towns, we do not think it...