Howard v. Lincoln

13 Me. 122
CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine
DecidedMay 15, 1836
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 13 Me. 122 (Howard v. Lincoln) 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
Howard v. Lincoln, 13 Me. 122 (Me. 1836).

Opinion

After a continuance for advisement the opinion of the Court was prepared by

Weston C. J.

By the reservation in the deed of May, 1825, from the plaintiff to Theophilus Smith, Jr., under which the defendant claims, the trees therein described continued the property of the plaintiff, with the right, while they remained, in so much of the soil, as was necessary to sustain them. Liford’s case, 11 Coke, 46. The plaintiff has therefore a right to maintain this action, unless he has parted with his interest in the trees, cut and carried away by the defendant. By his bill of sale of January, 1824, to Alpheus Spring, with the memorandum thereon, the plaintiff sold to him the trees subsequently reserved. And the right thereby acquired was, through certain mesne assignments, transferred to the defendant. But the bill of sale contains a provision in these words, said Alpheus to have the term of three years from the date hereof, to haul said timber.”

In Pease et al. v. Gibson, 6 Greenl. 81, this court has decided, that an instrument of this sort, is a sale only of so much of the timber specified, as the vendee may get off, within the time limited. What remained on the land, after the lease of three years, continued the property of the plaintiff, in virtue of his reservation in his deed to Smith. The timber in question, being cut and taken from the land by the defendant, long after the termination of that period, the plaintiff has a right to maintain trespass against him therefor.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Related

Shank v. Franklin Coal Co.
191 P. 482 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1920)
Mallett v. Doherty
180 P. 531 (California Supreme Court, 1919)
Chapman v. Dearman
181 S.W. 808 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1915)
R. M. Cobban Realty Co. v. Donlan
149 P. 484 (Montana Supreme Court, 1915)
Anderson v. Miami Lumber Co.
116 P. 1056 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1911)
Young v. Camp Manufacturing Co.
66 S.E. 843 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1910)
Van Slyke v. Arrowhead Reservoir & Power Co.
102 P. 816 (California Supreme Court, 1909)
Hollensteiner v. Missoula Lumber Co.
96 P. 420 (Montana Supreme Court, 1908)
Adkins v. Huff
52 S.E. 773 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1906)
Bennett v. Vinton Lumber Co.
28 Pa. Super. 495 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1905)
Watson v. Adams
69 N.E. 696 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1904)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
13 Me. 122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howard-v-lincoln-me-1836.