Seavey v. Cloudman, 90 Me. 536 (1897)
- Citation
- Seavey v. Cloudman, 90 Me. 536 (1897)
- Parent Document
- Seavey v. Cloudman, 90 Me. 536 (1897)
- Jurisdiction
- Maine (state)
- Effective Date
- 1897-08-16
Other Sections in This Document (14)
- Seavey v. Cloudman, 90 Me. 536 (1897)
- Seavey v. Cloudman, 90 Me. 536 (1897)
- Seavey v. Cloudman, 90 Me. 536 (1897)
- Seavey v. Cloudman, 90 Me. 536 (1897)
- Seavey v. Cloudman, 90 Me. 536 (1897)
- Seavey v. Cloudman, 90 Me. 536 (1897)
- Seavey v. Cloudman, 90 Me. 536 (1897)
- Seavey v. Cloudman, 90 Me. 536 (1897)
- Seavey v. Cloudman, 90 Me. 536 (1897)
- Seavey v. Cloudman, 90 Me. 536 (1897)
- Seavey v. Cloudman, 90 Me. 536 (1897)
- Seavey v. Cloudman, 90 Me. 536 (1897)
- Seavey v. Cloudman, 90 Me. 536 (1897)
- Seavey v. Cloudman, 90 Me. 536 (1897)
Full Text
467 charsThis construction of the statute seems to have been recognized as correct in Smith v. Grant, 56 Maine, 255, (1868), although the precise point decided was that replevin was not the proper process by which to oust the tenant and his family; also in Robinson v. Deering, 56 Maine, 359. So in Massachusetts, Howard v. Merriam, 5 Cush. 565 ; Curtis v. Galvin, 1 Allen, 215; Rooney v. Gillespie, 6 Allen, 74; Pratt v. Farrar, 10 Allen, 519; Emmes v. Feeley, 132 Mass. 346.