Open main menu

Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 2.djvu/61

This page needs to be proofread.


THE LAW SCHOOL.

43

I, 1 888, the Association has increased its membership by 120 new members, 75 joining during the month of January, and 45 during the months of Feoruary and March."

States and Territories Represented.

No. of Members.

No. of Members.

No. of Members.

Alaska . . .

I

Louisiana . .

I

Pennsylvania . .

II

Alabama . . .

I

Maine . . •

• ^2

Rhode Island . .

8

Arkansas • .

I

Maryland . .

. 8

Tennessee • . .

2

California . .

, II

Massachusetts .

. 409

Texas ....

5

Colorado . .

• 9

Michigan . . .

II

Vermont . .

2

Connecticut .

. 6

Minnesota . .

. II

Virginia . . .

I

Dakota . . .

2

Mississippi

I

Washington Terri-


Delaware . .

4

Missouri . •

. 22

tory ....

I

District of Colum-


Montana . . .

2

West Virginia

I

bia

15

Nebraska . .

I

Wisconsin . . .

3

Georgia . .

2

New Hampshire

• 7


Illinois . • .

. 18

New Jersey New York. .

• 4

New Brunswick .

10

Indiana . . .

3

. 8?

Nova Scotia . .

5

Iowa . • .

2

North Carolina

I

France ....

I

Kansas . • .

I

Ohio . .

• 47

United States of


Kentucky . .

. 6

Oregon . .

I

Colombia • •

I

Total .


761

Stati

£S AND Territories Unrepresented.

Arizona,

New Mexico,

Wyoming.

Florida,

South Carolina,

Nevada,

Utah,

IN

IE LAW SCh

100

L.

THE MOOT COURT.

Coram Gray,

J.

Bond V. Selwy

/«.

The acquisition by prescription of a right of way over land is not prevented by orders or threats on the part of the owner of the land against the use of the way, if such orders or threats are not complied with or yielded to.

Trespass quare clausum. The time of trespass alleged was Jan- uary II, 1887, with a continuando. The plaintiff and defendant owned adjoining parcels of land. The defendant in 1876 began to cross the plaintiff's land by a defined path from his own land to the highway, and continued, openly and constantly, to use the path till the date of the writ, October 20, 1887.

The plaintiff repeatedly told the defendant that he must not use the path ; that the plaintiff forbade him to use it ; that the defendant was a trespasser ; and that he would sue the defendant for trespass in using the