Gould v. Whitmore
Decision Date | 28 May 1887 |
Parties | GOULD v. WHITMORE, Adm'r. |
Court | Maine Supreme Court |
On exceptions by defendant from supreme judicial court, Knox county.
Assumpsit on account annexed for services rendered defendant's intestate. The defendant pleaded that the action, as appeared upon the face of the papers, was barred by the general statute of limitations, and by the special limitation contained in Rev. St. c. 87, § 12, which is as follows:
The presiding justice ruled in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant alleged exceptions.
A. P. Gould, for plaintiff. S.C.Whitmore, for defendant.
This is an action of assumpsit to recover for professional services and disbursements according to the account annexed to the writ. Two grounds of defense were pleaded by the defendant: First, that the action was barred by Rev. St. c. 87, § 12; second, that it was barred by the general limitation of six years; and it was claimed that these limitations were apparent upon the face of the papers; but this contention was not sustained by the justice presiding. "We think the ruling correct. By the act of 1872, c. 85, no action could be maintained against an administrator on a claim against the estate unless such claim was first presented in writing, and payment demanded at least 30 days before the action was commenced, and within two years after notice was given by him of his appointment; and the right to commence such action was limited to...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Board of Commissioners of Laramie County v. Stone
-
Jackson v. Mull
... ... (Angell on Lim., 120; Frankoviz v. Ireland (Minn.), ... 26 N.W. 225; Moser v. Crooks, 32 Iowa 172; ... Schoonover v. Vachon, 121 Ind. 3; Gould v ... Whitmore, 79 Me. 383; Hall v. Wood, 9 Gray, 60; ... Schoch, Adm'r., v. Garrett, 69 Pa. 144; ... Skyrme v. O. M. & M. Co., 8 Nev., 218; ... ...
-
Dugger v. Tutwiler
...1 Brick. Dig. 699, §§ 859-861; Underhill v. Insurance Co., 67 Ala. 45; Scruggs v. Land Co., 86 Ala. 173, 5 So. 440; Gould v. Whitmore, 79 Me. 383, 10 A. 60. 5. for the $500 fee paid by the Knights to P. A. Tutwiler for selling the land, it appears from the allegations of the bill, that it w......
-
Dyer v. Walls
...unless the facts of the case bring it within some exception. Littlefield v. Eaton, 74 Me. 516; Lancey v. White, 68 Me. 28,30; Gould v. Whitmore, 79 Me. 383, 10 Atl. Rep. The plaintiff attacks the notice of the defendants' appointment, and contends that the case comes within the express prov......