Blake v. Ham

53 Me. 430
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine·Decided July 1, 1866·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Appleton, C. J.

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.

Cutting, Kent, Dickerson, Barrows and Tapley, JJ., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Blake v. Ham, 53 Me. 430 (Me. 1866).

53 Me. 430 (Blake v. Ham) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Medeiros v. Koloa Sugar Co.
29 Haw. 43 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1926)
Hall v. Hobart
186 F. 426 (Eighth Circuit, 1911)
Kenniston v. Hannaford
58 N.H. 28 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1876)