Opinion of the court Haslem v. Lockwood

the court found plaintiff had improved manure piling heaps.

but principle not apply droppings of animals driven travelers on highway. highway not used, , cannot used, purpose of agriculture. manure of no benefit whatsoever it, on contrary detriment; , in cities , large villages becomes nuisance, , removed public officers @ public expense. finding in case is, “that removal of manure , scrapings calculated improve appearance , health of borough.” therefore evident cases relied upon defendant have no application case.

but said if manure personal property, possession of owner of fee, , scraping heaps plaintiff did not change possession, continued before, , therefore plaintiff cannot recover, neither had possession nor right immediate possession.

the manure belonged travelers animals dropped it, in being worthless them abandoned; , whether became property of borough of stamford owned fee of land on manure lay, unnecessary determine; if did, case finds removal of filth improvement borough, , no objection made 1 use of plaintiff attempted make of it. considering character of such accumulations upon highways, in cities , villages, , light in everywhere regarded in closely settled communities, cannot believe @ borough in instance have had objection act of plaintiff in removing nuisance affected public health , appearance of streets. @ events, think facts of case show sufficient right in plaintiff mediate possession of property against mere wrong doer.

the defendant appears before court in no enviable light. not pretend had right manure, when scattered upon highway, superior of plaintiff; after plaintiff had changed original condition , enhanced value labor, seized , appropriated own use fruits of plaintiff’s outlay, , seeks immunity responsibility on ground plaintiff wrong doer himself. conduct of defendant in keeping claim, , neither commends favorable consideration of court. plaintiff had peaceable , quiet possession of property; , deem sufficient until borough of stamford shall make complaint.

it further claimed if plaintiff had right property virtue of occupancy, lost right when ceased retain actual possession of manure after scraping heaps.

we not question general doctrine, right occupancy exists, exists no longer party retains actual possession of property, or till appropriates own use removing other place. if leaves property @ place discovered, , nothing whatsoever enhance value or change nature, has right occupancy unquestionably gone. question is, if party finds property comparatively worthless, plaintiff found property in question, owing scattered condition upon highway, , increases value labor , expense, lose right if leaves reasonable time procure means take away, when means necessary removal?

suppose teamster load of grain, while traveling highway, discovers rent in 1 of bags, , finds grain scattered upon road distance of mile. considers labor of collecting corn of more value property itself, , therefore abandons it, , pursues way. afterwards finds grain in condition , gathers kernel kernel heaps side of road, , leaves reasonable time procure means necessary removal. while gone bag, b discovers grain conveniently collected heaps , appropriates own use. has remedy? if has not, law in instance open reproach. think under such circumstances have reasonable time remove property, , during such reasonable time right protected. if so, principle applies case under consideration.

a reasonable time removal of manure had not elapsed when defendant seized , converted own use. statute regulating rights of parties in gathering of sea-weed, gives party heaps upon public beach twenty-four hours in remove it, , length of time removal of property think not unreasonable in cases present one.