Armstrong v. Bangor Mill Supply Corp.
| Decision Date | 07 July 1928 |
| Parties | ARMSTRONG v. BANGOR MILL SUPPLY CORPORATION. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Supreme Judicial Court, Washington County, at Law.
Action by Stillman Armstrong against the Bangor Mill Supply Corporation. Defendant's special demurrer was overruled, and it brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled.
Argued before PHILBROOK, DUNN, BARNES, BASSETT, and PATTANGALL, JJ.
H. J. Dudley, of Calais, for plaintiff.
William S. Cole, of Bangor, for defendant.
This case comes before the court on defendant's exceptions to the overruling of a special demurrer. So much of the declaration as is the subject of demurrer reads as follows:
"In a plea of the case, for that the plaintiff on February 11, 1927, was, and for a long time prior thereto had been, and still is, engaged in the business of sawing lumber and laths at said Vanceboro; and on said February — the defendant pretending to be skilled in the work of repairing machinery, at Bangor, in the county of Penobscot, state of Maine; and, in consideration that the plaintiff had then and there retained and "employed the said defendant to repair a certain piece of machinery, to wit, a certain engine crank shaft, then and there used in and necessary for the said business of the plaintiff, for a certain reasonable reward to the said defendant in that behalf, to be paid by the plaintiff, the said defendant then and there undertook and faithfully promised said plaintiff to repair said crankshaft with good and proper material, and in a sound, substantial, and workmanlike manner; and said defendant, while pretending and undertaking as aforesaid, and not regarding his said lastmentioned promise and undertaking, did carelessly and unskillfully perform its work, and did not use good and proper material, and did not perform said work in a sound, substantial, and workmanlike manner, but wholly refused and neglected so to do, in consequence of which the plaintiff was put to great expense, and suffered great damage," etc.
Defendant complains:
(1) That the declaration is insufficient in allegation of time.
(2) That the declaration is insufficient in allegation of place.
(3) That the declaration does not allege in what respect the machinery to be repaired was defective.
(4) That the declaration does not allege any particular material which the defendant used or failed to use which was not good and proper material.
(5) That the declaration does not allege in what respect the defendant failed to perform said work in a sound, substantial, and workmanlike manner.
(6) That the declaration alleges two distinct breaches of duty, namely (a) that defendant did not use good and proper material, and (b) that defendant did not perform work in a workmanlike manner, and that therefore the declaration is double.
Taking up the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hutchins v. Libby
...allege a definite time and place. Such averments are essential in good pleading. The declaration is defective. Armstrong v. Bangor Mill Supply Corporation, 127 Me. 194, 142 A. 734. But have the defects been reached by a general demurrer? Are they matters of form open only on a special demur......
-
Gasoline Products Co. v. Champlin Refining Co.
...Stearnes Co. v. Robins, 114 Okl. 156, 245 P. 63; Gagnon v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 206 Mass. 547, 92 N. E. 761; Armstrong v. Bangor Mill Supply Corp., 127 Me. 194, 142 A. 734; Id., 128 Me. 75, 145 A. 741; Waukeag Ferry Assoc. v. Arey, 128 Me. 108, 146 A. 10; Eastman Kodak Co. v. Southern P......
-
Armstrong v. Bangor Mill Supply Corp.
...Armstrong against the Bangor Mill Supply Corporation. Verdict for plaintiff. On general motion for new trial. Motion overruled. See, also, 142 A. 734. Argued before WILSON, C. J., and DUNN, STURGIS, BARNES, PATTANGALL, and FARRINGTON, H. J. Dudley, of Calais, for plaintiff. William S. Cole,......