Hamlin v. Treat

• Decision Date: 15 March 1895
• Parties: HAMLIN et al. v. TREAT.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

32 A. 909

87 Me. 310

HAMLIN et al.

v. TREAT.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

March 15, 1895.

(Official.)

Exceptions from supreme judicial court, Piscataquis county.

This was an action of assumpsit by Eliza G. Hamlin and another against Charles P. Treat, upon account annexed, to recover $890.60, alleged to be the aggregate of certain bills for boarding certain railroad men, and certain supplies delivered the same men, while boarding and working upon the railroad.

The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant came to the tent or camp of the plaintiffs, and made there with the plaintiffs an express contract that the plaintiffs should furnish board and supplies to men working for certain contractors, called Tucker Bros., and keep certain accounts or records of said board and supplies, and he, the defendant, would pay the amount so furnished. The defendant denied the contract. The plea was the general issue and a brief statement, pleading the statute of frauds. The verdict was for the plaintiffs for the full amount claimed. Defendant excepts. Overruled.

The presiding justice, besides other instructions to the jury, gave instructions and rulings which the defendant claims were expressions of opinion.

The view taken by the law court renders a full report of the exceptions unnecessary. A few sentences are, however, subjoined:

"Now, both sides rely upon circumstances which they contend corroborate the positions respectively taken by the one side and the other."

"The plaintiffs say: 'There are certain circumstances that corroborate us, leading you to believe that our main statements are true.' On the other hand, the defendants say that the circumstances must show you that the main statements are not true. I shall not go minutely into these specifications, but shall allude to several salient things most relied upon, and I will reverse the order. I will speak of the contentions of the defense first, as perhaps coming in more naturally in the argumentation.

"The defense contends, in the first place, that the idea of such a bargain as the plaintiffs claim and rely upon is inconsistent with the situation of the parties, and the situation of things at the time when it was alleged that this contract was verbally entered into. It is contended by the defense that these plaintiffs, when they went upon the ground, when they arranged for their structures and conveniences for boarding-house keeping, had no knowledge that the defendant was coming there upon the ground; that they were there not communicating with him in the first place, but with the subcontractors under the defendant, the Tucker Brothers; and that the plaintiffs went there with the idea of boarding men for the Tucker Brothers, who were to have a contract with the defendant entertained for a time even before the contract was signed.

"And the defense thinks there is more force in this thing from the fact that the plaintiffs were related to one of the subcontractors, and that the plaintiffs must have gone there with different expectations than to secure a contract with the defendant, or to attempt to hold him for these bills.

"In answer to that, the position of the plaintiffs is—if not by themselves so said, by their counsel argued—that they went there under general expectations, under hope of expectations, under some uncertainties, seeking to make the uncertainties certain, and, when the defendant appeared there, they struck a contract with him in clear terms; and, though there could be no question from that time onward, under that promise and contract, there might be a question as to how far the defendant would be liable for bills, already made, for credits already given, for boarding already had. But it does not occur on this bill, because that would be applicable to July, and this bill is only for August. Still, the condition of things there and the situation of the parties are serviceable, as to the conduct and situation of the parties, in what you believe finally occurred and took place.

"Now, the defense says it is unnatural and inconsistent, in the condition of things, to believe that this alleged contract was made; that is, that the position of things there is an argument against it. And the plaintiffs argued that it is not, and that, if there is any force in...