Peaks v. Blethen

• Decision Date: 16 November 1885
• Citation: 77 Me. 510,1 A. 451
• Parties: PEAKS v. BLETHEN and others.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

1 A. 451

77 Me. 510

PEAKS

v. BLETHEN and others.¹

SUPREME COURT OF MAINE.

Filed November 16, 1885.

The opinion states the case.

C. A. Everett, for plaintiff.

A. G. Lebroke and E. Parsons, (with whom was E. Flint,) for defendant.

DANFORTH, J. This is a real action, and comes to the law court with the stipulation that judgment shall be rendered "upon the facts and so much of the testimony as is legally admissible." No question is raised as to the competency of any of the testimony; no suggestion of any fact in dispute. The defense is the general issue, with a brief statement under which the defendants claim certain rights in the premises which are specifically described, and disclaim the residue. No objection is made as to the time when this disclaimer was filed. To it the plaintiff files a counter brief statement alleging in substance that at the date of the writ, and before and since, the defendants did claim right, title, and interest in said premises, and were in the possession and occupation of the same. Thus is raised the real issue between the parties, and that is, to the title to the property described in the defendants' brief statement, and whether the defendants were in possession of, and claiming title to, that part disclaimed. It may be that the brief statement on either side is not technically accurate. But if, under the stipulations in the report, any pleadings are required, these are sufficient to direct the attention of the court to the real issue, and lay the foundation in the record for the proper judgment.

The case shows that in February, 1852, school-district No. 1, in Dover, acquired an undoubted title to the lot of land described in the plaintiff's writ, and subsequently built a school-house thereon. The defendants disclaim any title to this lot and the building, except the second story, which was finished as a hall and ante-rooms, with certain privileges or appurtenances connected with it. To this second story, consisting of the hall and ante-rooms, they, in substance, allege a title, and the remainder of the brief statement sets out certain easements which are, in fact, privileges or appurtenances connected with and belonging to the hall. At a meeting holden in January, 1852, the district voted to build a school-house, and purchase a lot for the same. At an adjournment of the same meeting, with the subject-matter of building a school-house still under consideration, it was "voted that the building committee be authorized to permit any person or persons desiring to do so to put into said school-house a second story, to be used by them as a public hall, provided that such person or persons shall pay the extra expense of the same, the expense to be ascertained by said committee in contracting for the erection and completion of said house." At a subsequent meeting, in February, 1852, under an article in the warrant as follows, viz., "to see if the district will vote to authorize some person or persons to execute a sufficient lease of the upper story of the contemplated school-house to the proprietors of the same," it was "voted that James S. Wiley be a committee in behalf of the district to execute a good and sufficient lease to Thomas S. Pullen and others to add a second story to the school-house about to be erected in this district, with a right to finish said second story into a hall, and to hold the same as proprietors thereof so long as said school-house shall stand, and that said committee be instructed to insert in said lease such provisions as he shall deem equitable in regard to keeping said building in repair, its occupancy," etc.

In pursuance of this vote, and after the school-house with the hall was finished, Mr. Wiley, in behalf of the district, entered into a written contract with Thomas S. Pullen, Samuel Palmer, and A. B. Chase, dated December 20, 1852. By this instrument it appears that Pullen, Palmer & Chase, under the permission given in the vote of the district, had built the hall at their own expense, for their own use. In it they are recognized as the owners; they, their associates, executors, administrators, and assigns, are given permission to use it when it was built so long as the house shall stand, and when that is taken down provision is made for the division of the material in proportion to the value of the parts of the same "owned and occupied by each other." It further gives the rights of ingress and egress as appurtenances to the hall, and provides for the uses to which it may be put.

Much stress is laid upon this instrument by the plaintiff as confirmatory, if not the foundation, of his title; claiming that it is a lease, and that as it is not for a certain number of years, no definite period for its termination being fixed, it cannot be a lease for years; and as there are no words of inheritance, it can only be a lease for the life of the three persons for whose benefit it was made, and as they are all dead the lease itself has ceased to be. It is true that it was called a lease, and that the words, "demise, lease and let" are used. But it is equally true that other words are used,...