“Property owners brought action against city and adjoining
property owners, seeking to quiet title and to establish
easement by prescription, and alleging claims for
trespass, reverse condemnation, § 1983 violation, and
damages. The Superior Court, York County, Fritzsche, J.,
declared that lane bordering properties was a public way,
granted city a prescriptive easement in land beyond
paved area of lane, dismissed § 1983 claim, and held that
plaintiff had easement on portion of adjoining property.
Appeals were taken. The Supreme Judicial Court,
Rudman, J., held that: (1) evidence supported city’s right
to public way by prescriptive use; (2) boundary
surveyor’s uncontroverted testimony supported finding
that width of lane extended beyond its paved portions; (3)
property owners’ § 1983 claim was timebarred; (4)
evidence supported finding that grantor intended
easement over adjoining property to be perpetual in
nature; (5) adjoining property owners were not innocent
purchasers entitled to invoke doctrine of equitable
estoppel to extinguish easement; (6) as a matter of first
impression, tax sale did not extinguish easement
appurtenant; and (7) evidence of prior use supported
permitting use of vehicles on right-of-way.
Affirmed.”