Blake v. Ham
Opinion
This is a real action. The defendant claims an easement in the demanded premises. But such easement constitutes no bar to the plaintiff’s right to recover.
If disturbed in the enjoyment of his easement, the defendant may enforce his rights by a suit against those by whom the disturbance is caused.
These principles are affirmed by repeated decisions in this State and in Massachusetts. Thompson v. Proprietors of Androscoggin Bridge, 5 Greenl., 6; Blake v. Clark, 6 Greenl., 440; Hancock v. Wentworth, 5 Met., 450; Morgan v. Moore, 3 Gray, 319.
The plaintiff is entitled to costs. — Default to stand.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
53 Me. 430 (Blake v. Ham) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.