Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1866

Blake v. Ham

Blake v. Ham
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Decided July 1, 1866 · Appleton, Barrows, Cutting, Dickerson, Kent, Tapley
53 Me. 430

Blake v. Ham

Opinion of the Court

Appleton, C. J.

This 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.

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

These 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.

The plaintiff is entitled to costs. Default to stand.

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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.