Blake v. Ham

Decided July 1, 1866

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · decided 1866-07-01

<p>In ejectment, the fact that the defendant has an easement in the demanded premises constitutes no bar to the plaintiff’s right of recovery.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1866-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently March 1926

1 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

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 →

Appleton, C. J.

¶1This is a real action. The defendant claims an easement in the demanded premises. But such easement constitutes no bar to the plaintiff’s right to recover.

¶2If disturbed in the enjoyment of his easement, the defendant may enforce his rights by a suit against those by whom the disturbance is caused.

¶3These principles are affirmed by repeated decisions in this State and in Massachusetts. Thompson v. Proprietors of Androscoggin Bridge, 5 Greenl., 6; Blake v. Clark, 6 Greenl., 440; Hancock v. Wentworth, 5 Met., 450; Morgan v. Moore, 3 Gray, 319.

¶4The plaintiff is entitled to costs. — Default to stand.

Cutting, Kent, Dickerson, Barrows and Tapley, JJ., concurred.