Patrick Morgan v. Manis Boyes

65 Me. 124, 1876 Me. LEXIS 27
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine·Decided June 6, 1876·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Walton, J.

This is an action of trespass quare clausum, fregit. The only question is whether the plaintiff’s possession, or right of possession, is such as will support the action. We think it is not. He has only a right of way over the locus in quo. Such a right does not carry with it a right to the exclusive possession of the land. The owner may still use it for any purpose which does not materially impair, nor unreasonably interfere with its use as a way. He may use it as a way himself, or permit others so to use it. The defendant had such permission so to use it. His entry was not therefore a trespass. Certainly it was not a breach of the plaintiff’s close. It in no way interfered with the plaintiff’s use of it as a way. Nor was the removal of the obstruction, placed there by the plaintiff for the express purpose of preventing the defendant’s use of the way, a trespass. The obstruction was a nuisance, and the defendant had a right to remove it.

Judgment for defendant.

Appleton, C. J., Barrows, Daneorth, Virgin and Peters, JJ., concurred.

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

Patrick Morgan v. Manis Boyes, 65 Me. 124, 1876 Me. LEXIS 27 (Me. 1876).

65 Me. 124 (Patrick Morgan v. Manis Boyes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Robert Flaherty v. Helen Muther
2013 ME 39 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2013)
Flaherty v. Muther
2011 ME 32 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2011)
Rancourt v. Town of Glenburn
635 A.2d 964 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1993)
Stevens v. Bird-Jex Co.
18 P.2d 292 (Utah Supreme Court, 1933)
Thompson v. Germania Life Insurance
106 N.W. 102 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1906)