Wooster v. Fiske

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Wooster v. Fiske

102 A. 231, 116 Me. 517, 1917 Me. LEXIS 109

DecidedNovember 14, 1917

StatusPublished

This text of 102 A. 231 (Wooster v. Fiske) 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

Wooster v. Fiske, 102 A. 231, 116 Me. 517, 1917 Me. LEXIS 109 (Me. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

This case involves an action of trespass, quare clausum, and comes up on motion by the plaintiff. The issue as stated by the defendant is as follows: Did Allen A. Fiske have the right to cross the property of the plaintiff within the limits of the travelled way on March 16, 1915, by rights acquired by him or his grantors by adverse possession, i. e., a private right of way across the homestead farm of the plaintiff?

The report of the evidence contains two hundred and fifty-one pages and involves pure questions of fact. In view of the conclusion to which a careful reading of the report inevitably leads, an analysis of the testimony, upon which the conclusion is based, is unnecessary and beyond the limits of any reasonable rescript.

The elements which enter into proof of a prescription right are too well established to require recital. The defendant’s evidence utterly fails to show that continued adverse use which, in twenty years, ripens into a prescriptive title. As it was incumbent for him to show this in order to maintain his verdict, the entry must be: Motion sustained. New trial granted. Hale & Hamlin, for plaintiff. William E. Whiting, for defendant.

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

This case involves an action of trespass, quare clausum, and comes up on motion by the plaintiff. The issue as stated by the defendant is as follows: Did Allen A. Fiske have the right to cross the property of the plaintiff within the limits of the travelled way on March 16, 1915, by rights acquired by him or his grantors by adverse possession, i. e., a private right of way across the homestead farm of the plaintiff?

The report of the evidence contains two hundred and fifty-one pages and involves pure questions of fact. In view of the conclusion to which a careful reading of the report inevitably leads, an analysis of the testimony, upon which the conclusion is based, is unnecessary and beyond the limits of any reasonable rescript.

The elements which enter into proof of a prescription right are too well established to require recital. The defendant’s evidence utterly fails to show that continued adverse use which, in twenty years, ripens into a prescriptive title. As it was incumbent for him to show this in order to maintain his verdict, the entry must be: Motion sustained. New trial granted. Hale & Hamlin, for plaintiff. William E. Whiting, for defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

102 A. 231, 116 Me. 517, 1917 Me. LEXIS 109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wooster-v-fiske-me-1917.