Gray v. Chase
| Decision Date | 01 November 1916 |
| Citation | 98 A. 940 |
| Parties | GRAY v. CHASE. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Argued before SAVAGE, C. J., and KING, BIRD, HALEY, and PHILBROOK, JJ.
Coggan & Coggan, of Boston, Mass., for plaintiff. C. J. Dunn, of Orono, and F. B. Snow, of Bluehill, for defendant.
To the plaintiff's declaration the defendant filed a general demurrer, which was sustained, and the declaration adjudged bad. The plaintiff then filed a motion to amend the writ and declaration. This motion was denied, and the amendment disallowed as a matter of law. The case is before us upon plaintiff's exceptions to these rulings.
The amendment avers that within 18 months after the executrix had filed in the probate court her affidavit that notice had been given by her of her appointment as executrix, the plaintiff presented to her the claim declared upon; but neither in the original declaration, nor in this amendment, is there any averment that the claim was presented to the executrix in writing. Such averment is necessary. Stevens v. Haskell et al., 72 Me. 244.
It follows that the amendment would be demurrable, and hence not allowable. Garmong v. Henderson, 112 Me. 383, 92 Atl. 322.
Exceptions overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clappison v. Foley
...demurrable should not be allowed. Gilbert v. Dodge, 130 Me. 417, 156 A. 891; Garmong v. Henderson, 112 Me. 383, 92 A. 322; Gray v. Chase, 115 Me. 350, 98 A. 940. In the amended bill the plaintiff, James A. Clappison, seeks to enforce rights to which he, as an individual, claims to be entitl......
-
Hashey v. Bangor Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. .
...although controlling of the propriety of the allowance of the amendments. Garmong v. Henderson, 112 Me. 383, 92 A. 322; Gray v. Chase, 115 Me. 350, 98 A. 940. The issue might have been raised for immediate consideration by the filing of demurrers to the amended declarations. Bean v. Ayers e......
- Talbot v. Locke