Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantsustained
plaintiffdefendantsustained

Related Cases

Schultz v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 201 N.Y. 230, 94 N.E. 601
View Case »
Graves v. Berdan, 12 E.P. Smith 498, 26 N.Y. 498, 1863 WL 4416
View Case »
Wilomay Holding Co. v. Peninsula Land Co., 36 N.J.Super. 440, 116 A.2d 484
View Case »
Wight v. Ingram-Day Lumber Co., 195 Miss. 823, 17 So.2d 196
View Case »
Brotherton v. Cleveland, 923 F.2d 477, 59 USLW 2457
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Preble v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 85 Me. 260, 27 A. 149, 21 L.R.A. 829, 35 Am.St.Rep. 366

Facts

The dispute arose over a small triangular piece of land at the Richmond station, which was covered by the defendant's freight platform. The original railroad location was established in 1848, and in 1852, the defendant purchased an additional strip of land from the plaintiffs. Over the years, the boundary line became unclear, and when the defendant sought to enlarge the freight platform in 1889, it was determined that the true boundary was different from the existing fence. The plaintiff, Israel Preble, claimed adverse possession of the disputed land, believing the fence marked the true boundary.

The original location of the defendant's railroad in 1848 was made four rods in width at the point in question, its westerly boundary being the easterly line of the premises then owned by the plaintiff's father.

Issue

Can the plaintiff's claim of adverse possession be sustained given the established legal principles regarding intention and occupancy?

the question is, can this claim on the part of the plaintiff be sustained on the facts here presented? Clearly not, unless the rule established by an unbroken line of the decisions of this court covering a period of nearly 70 years is now to be overturned.

Rule

One who occupies land not covered by his deed for 20 years or more, without the intention to claim title beyond his actual boundary, does not acquire title by adverse possession.

That rule is that one who by mistake occupies for 20 years or more land not covered by his deed, with no intention to claim title beyond his actual boundary, wherever that may be, does not thereby acquire title by adverse possession.

Analysis

The court analyzed the plaintiff's claim of adverse possession and found that the plaintiff had occupied the land under the belief that the fence marked the true boundary. However, the court determined that the plaintiff did not have the requisite intention to claim title to the land beyond the true boundary, as his belief was conditional on the fence being the true line. Therefore, the possession was not adverse to the true owner.

The conclusions of fact which are fairly warranted by the evidence leave no room for doubt that the case at bar falls within the principle last stated.

Conclusion

The court concluded that the plaintiff's possession was not adverse and ruled in favor of the defendant, affirming the validity of the defendant's title to the land.

Judgment for the defendant.

Who won?

Maine Central Railroad Company prevailed because the court found that the plaintiffs could not establish a claim of adverse possession due to the lack of intention to claim beyond their actual boundary.

Maine Central Railroad Company prevailed because the court found that the plaintiffs could not establish a claim of adverse possession due to the lack of intention to claim beyond their actual boundary.

You must be