Hilton v. Erskine

98 A. 561, 115 Me. 549, 1916 Me. LEXIS 33
CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine
DecidedSeptember 8, 1916
StatusPublished

This text of 98 A. 561 (Hilton v. Erskine) 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.

Bluebook
Hilton v. Erskine, 98 A. 561, 115 Me. 549, 1916 Me. LEXIS 33 (Me. 1916).

Opinion

Action of trespass quare clausum to recover damages because of defendant’s entering [550]*550upon and crossing plaintiff’s land and cutting trees thereon. The defendant attempted to justify by setting up a right of way across the lot in question acquired by prescription. The 'jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for one dollar.

A. S. Littlfield, and Charles L. Macurda, for plaintiff. George A. Cowan, for defendant.

Upon defendant’s motion for a new trial, it is held;

That a patient examination of the evidence convinces the Court that the verdict was not manifestly wrong. The burden was upon the defendant to establish his claim, and we are unable to say that the jury clearly erred in finding that he had not proved all the necessary elements required by law to constitute such an adverse user. Motion overruled.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
98 A. 561, 115 Me. 549, 1916 Me. LEXIS 33, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hilton-v-erskine-me-1916.