Dupont v. Labbe
Decision Date | 07 July 1952 |
Citation | 89 A.2d 741,148 Me. 102 |
Parties | DUPONT v. LABBE et al. |
Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Daniel E. Crowley, Biddeford, for plaintiffs.
Hilary F. Mahaney, Biddeford, for defendant.
Before MURCHIE, C. J., and THAXTER, FELLOWS, MERRILL, NULTY, and WILLIAMSON, JJ.
Exceptions to the granting of a review of an action in which the petitioner was defaulted on his failure to enter an appearance are overruled.
The petition is based upon R.S. Ch. 110, Sec. 1, Clause VII. The applicable law is found in Donnell v. Hodsdon, 102 Me. 420, at page 422, 67 A. 143, at page 144, as follows:
Inhabitants of Town of Thomaston v. Starrett, 128 Me. 328, 147 A. 427; Jason v. Goddard, 129 Me. 483, 149 A. 622; Thompson v. American Agr. Chemical Co., 134 Me. 61, 181 A. 829; Enoch C. Richards Co. v. Libby, 140 Me. 38, 33 A.2d 537.
It is familiar law that a petition for review is addressed to the discretion of the court. Summit Thread Co. v. Corthell, 132 Me. 336, 171 A. 254, and cases cited cupra.
In passing upon the decision of the presiding justice we bear in mind the rule stated by Justice, later Chief Justice, Emery in Goodwin v. Prime, 92 Me. 355, at page 362, 42 A. 785, at page 787, as follows:
The law has also been well stated by Justice, later Chief Justice, Sturgis in Bourisk v. Mohican Co., 133 Me. 207, at page 210, 175 A. 345, at page 346, as follows:
See also American Oil Co. v. Carlisle, 144 Me. 1, 63 A.2d 676, and Sard v. Sard, 147 Me. 46, at page 53, 83 A.2d 286.
The first error of law of which the respondents complain is without merit. At the outset of the hearing and before the taking of testimony the respondents requested the presiding justice to rule that under the statute the petitioner must prove substantially what is stated in the quotation above from the Donnell case.
The justice declined to specify anything at that time. There was no reason for him then to rule. Error comes not in failure to state the law before hearing, but in failure to apply the governing principles of law in the course of hearing and decision.
The second objection in the bill of exceptions reads:
'The Judge heard and ruled only on the accident and mistake and found for the petitioner over the objections of the respondents and the respondents duly excepted thereto.'
The record, however, shows that the justice considered the remaining statutory elements in reaching his decision. The record was made a part of the bill of exceptions and accordingly controls the bill in so far as it differs therefrom. Tower v. Haslam, 84 Me. 86, 24 A. 587; State of Maine v. Mitchell, 144 Me. 320, 68 A.2d 387.
In the third objection the respondents claim that from the evidence 'that one and only one conclusion could be reached from those facts and that is that the petitioner was properly served and only through the petitioner's own negligence and lack of due diligence was the...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Kelley v. Brotherhood of R. R. Trainmen
-
Munsey v. Public Loan Corp.
...of Thomaston v. Starrett, 128 Me. 328, 147 A. 427; Thompson v. American Agricultural Chemical Co., 134 Me. 61, 181 A. 829; Dupont v. Labbe, 148 Me. 102, 89 A.2d 741. A petition for review will be denied if the attorney was negligent, for his negligence unexplained is the negligence of his c......
-
Young v. Carignan
...an injustice so apparent as to be instantly visible without argument.' Goodwin v. Prime, 92 Me. 355, 362, 42 A. 785, 787; Dupont v. Labbe, 148 Me. 102, 89 A.2d 741. 'When the determination of any question rests in the judicial discretion of the trial court, the exercise of that discretion c......