Hill v. Jordan
This text of 30 Me. 367 (Hill v. Jordan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
— The plaintiff, to whom the land was mortgaged, having made an entry upon it, and claimed the possession, such entry put an end to the tenancy at will, subsisting between the defendant and the mortgager. And the defendant by continuing to hold over after the entry, and refusing to become the tenant of the plaintiff, must be considered as having violated his possession, and as a trespasser.
The authorities cited in the argument, and also others, show that the action is maintainable. Smith v. Shepard, 15 Pick. 147; Reed v. Davis, 4 Pick. 216; Mayo v. Fletcher, 14 Pick. 525.
According to the agreement of the parties, the defendant is to be defaulted.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
30 Me. 367, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-jordan-me-1849.