Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

113 Mass. 376

Proctor v. Adams

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided November 15, 1873

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1873-11-15

<p>One entering upon the sea beach of another and removing, for the purpose of restoring to its owner, a boat cast ashore by a storm and in danger of being carried off by the sea is not a trespasser.</p>

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““It is a very ancient rule of the Common Law that an entry upon land to save goods which are in jeopardy of being lost or destroyed by water, fire or any like danger is not a trespass.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Broad v. Anderson

Relies on Chase v. Corcoran

Cited in Bouvier (1914)’s definition of “Wound”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1873-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently June 1957

12 state decisions

40187318801890190019101920193019401950decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Gray, C. J.

¶1The boat, having been cast ashore by the sea, was a wreck, in the strictest legal sense. 3 Bl. Com. 106. Chase v. Corcoran, 106 Mass. 286, 288. Neither the finders of the boat, nor the owner of the beach, nor the Commonwealth, had any title to the boat as against its former owner. Body of Liberties, art. 90. Anc. Chart. 211. 2 Mass. Col. Rec. 143. St. 1814, c. 170. Rev. Sts. c. 57. Gen. Sts. c. 81. 3 Dane Ab. 134, 136, 138, 144. 2 Kent Com. 322, 359. But the owner of the land on which the boat was cast was under no duty to save it for him. Sutton v. Buck, 2 Taunt. 302, 312.

¶2If the boat, being upon land between high and low water mark, owned or occupied by the plaintiff, was taken by the defendants, claiming it as their own, when it was not, the plaintiff had a sufficient right of possession to maintain an action against them. Barker v. Bates, 13 Pick. 255. Dunwich v. Sterry, 13. & Ad. 831. But if, as the evidence offered by them tended to show, the boat was in danger of being carried off by the sea, e;nd they, before the plaintiff had taken possession of it, removed it for the purpose of saving it and restoring it to its lawful owner, they were not trespassers. In such a case, though they had no permission from the plaintiff or any other person, they had an implied license by law to enter on the beach to save the property. It is a very ancient rule of the common law, that an entry upon *378land to save goods which are in jeopardy of being lost or destroyed by water, fire, or any like danger, is not a trespass. 21 H. VII. 27, 28, pl. 5. Bro. Ab. Trespass, 213. Vin. Ab. Trespass, (H. a. 4) pl, 24 ad fin.; (K. a.) pl. 3. In Dunwich v. Sterry, 1 B. & Ad. 831, a case very like this, Mr. Justice Parke (afterwards Baron Parke and Lord Wensleydale) left it to the jury to say whether the defendant took the property for the benefit of the owners, or under a claim of his own and to put the plaintiffs to proof of their title. In Barker v. Bates, 13 Pick. 255, upon which the plaintiff mainly relies, the only right claimed by the defendants was as finders of the property and for their own benefit.

¶3The defendants are therefore entitled to a new trial. As the answer was not objected to, and the declaration may be amended in the court below, we have not considered the form of the pleadings. New trial ordered.

/113/mass/376 · .json · Public domain