Bartlett v. Newton
| Decision Date | 27 November 1951 |
| Citation | 147 Me. 185,84 A.2d 679 |
| Parties | BARTLETT v. NEWTON. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
William E. McCarthy, Rumford, for plaintiff.
Gerry Brooks, Bethel, for defendant.
Before MURCHIE, C. J., and THAXTER, FELLOWS, MERRILL, NULTY and WILLIAMSON, JJ.
This case was reported to this Court, for the rendition of such judgment as the law and the evidence require, upon so much of the latter as is legally admissible. The issue presented is purely one of fact. It should be resolved by a trier of facts, passing upon the credibility of witnesses giving testimony sharply conflicting, after having the benefit of observing them on the stand. Associated Fish Products Co. v. Hussey, 145 Me. ----, 71 A.2d 519. The report must be discharged, and the case remanded to be tried at nisi prius.
The primary issue is whether the plaintiff had a trade with the defendant, as he claims, whereby labor performed for Newton & Tebbets, Inc., a corporation of which the defendant was president, was to be applied to a note for $581.40 given the defendant. The note was signed also by Roger W. Wheeler, a partner in Wheeler Brothers, the employer of the plaintiff, engaged at the time in procuring cord wood for Newton & Tebbets, Inc. The note recites that the principal sum, with interest, was 'to be collected from Wheeler Brothers account at Newton & Tebbets mill.' No payment was made on the note, unless by plaintiff's labor in yarding 100 cords of wood for Newton & Tebbets, Inc. under an account designated the 'Wild River Account.' That account dealt with 27.89 cords of wood in excess of the 100 cords yarded by the plaintiff.
A lesser issue, assuming that plaintiff's story is rejected by the trier of facts, will be the coverage of a chattel mortgage given by the plaintiff to secure the note. When it was executed plaintiff was the owner, subject to a conditional sale agreement, of an Allis-Chalmers Diesel Tractor equipped with Carco Hydrodozer and Winch. The mortgage identifies the tractor with its serial and engine numbers as shown in the conditional sale agreement, reciting that it is subject thereto. The evidence indicates that the blade of the hydrodozer was not attached to the tractor when the mortgage was given, or when it was foreclosed. It was in use on it from time to time while the mortgage was in force.
The action is trover. Plaintiff seeks to recover for the tractor and its equipment, all of which was taken by the defendant in foreclosure proceedings. He claims that the debt was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hand v. Nickerson
...the same. See Zoidis v. Breen, 132 Me. 489, 171 A. 321; Associated Fish Products v. Hussey, 145 Me. 388, 71 A.2d 519; Bartlett v. Newton, 147 Me. 185, 84 A.2d 679. In cases reported to the Law Court on the evidence because of questions of law involved, this Court may also pass upon the fact......
-
Bartlett v. Newton
...the rendition of such judgment as the law and the evidence require, upon so much of the latter as is legally admissible.' Bartlett v. Newton, 147 Me. 185, 84 A.2d 679. That report was discharged on the ground that the only issue involved was one of fact which should be resolved by a trier o......