48 Me. 478 | Me. | 1861
The opinion of the Court was drawn up by
The case finds that the plaintiff, on the first day of April, 1848, had, upon a wharf within the defendant town, a quantity of laths and long lumber, for which the assessors
It appears that the plaintiff had a lease of a mill called the shore mill, situate in Whitneyville, for the term of five years from April 1, 1855, at the annual rent of $950, with the right to have all lumber sawed at said mill landed on the railroad wharves, at Machias Port, so far as practicable for the portion of the wharves to be appropriated for said mill, and the lumber was to be shipped^ free of wharfage. The plaintiff had a portion of a wharf assigned to him by metes and bounds^-As a place to land his lumber, and has used the same for that purpose since the taking of said lease.
In 1857, the plaintiff manufactured large quantities of lumber at said mill, which was carried over the railroad and landed upon that part of the wharf assigned to him, and shipped therefrom. The lumber remained upon the wharf only until vessels could be procured to ship it. That portion of it which was assessed was put upon the wharf in 1857, and shipped the next spring as early as a vessel could be obtained, but not until after the first day of April. Other parts of the wharf seem to have been held and used by other persons under like circumstances.
Do these facts show an occupancy of the wharf within the meaning of the statute ? The plaintiff appears to have had the entire control of that part of the wharf assigned to him and to have had the sole use of it, after the assignment under his lease. In the case of Campbell & al. v. Inhabitants of Machias, 33 Maine, 419, Shepley, C. J., in announc
Under the statute, in order to lay the foundation of the right to tax a non-resident, we think the store, shop, mill or wharf must be occupied under such circumstances as will constitute the occupant, during his occupancy, the owner pro hoc vice, as against other persons. It must be used by the occupant, as if it were his own for the time being. In the case before us, the fact, that the plaintiff’s limits were assigned by metes and bounds; that the right to use the premises was fixed and certain, for a long period of time, without interruption from the owners; and that the premises were in fact so used under a written lease, satisfactorily shows that the plaintiff was an occupant of the • wharf within the meaning of the statute. His control of the wharf, as assigned to him, was, for the time provided for by the lease, as entire and absolute . as if he had been the owner of the. premises; and his occupancy seems to have been such as would, if it had been adverse, constitute a disseizin of so much of the wharf as was occupied by him. Had he been.the actual owner, and used the wharf in the same way, the right to tax could not be doubt