Heim v. Coleman

• Decision Date: 22 November 1926
• Parties: HEIM v. COLEMAN et al.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

135 A. 33

HEIM

v. COLEMAN et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Nov. 22, 1926.

On Motion from Supreme Judicial Court, Oxford County, at Law.

Action by Gustav F. Heim against Sargent S. Coleman and others, heard by a single justice. Finding for defendants, and plaintiff moves for a new trial. Motion dismissed.

Argued before WILSON, C. J., and PHILBROOK, DEASY, STURGIS, and BASSETT, JJ and MORRILL, A. R. J.

Hastings & Son, of Fryeburg, for plaintiff.

A. J. Stearns and W. G. Conary, both of Norway, Me., for defendants.

PHILBROOK, J. This case was heard by a single justice, the docket entry showing, "Hearing before court, without intervention of jury, with rights of appeal to law court." The justice below made a finding for the defendant, and the plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial upon the grounds usually alleged in a case where there has been a jury trial.

In cases tried before a single justice, it has usually been considered that his findings upon matters of fact are conclusive, and that errors of law must be presented by a bill of exceptions. Thompson v. Thompson, 79 Me. 286, 9 A. 888.

When the case was about to be argued before this court, the irregularity of procedure became apparent, and thereupon the following stipulation was presented, signed by counsel for all the parties, and allowed and assented to by the justice presiding below:

"Stipulation.

"Inasmuch as it now appears that the docket entries in said case are not in accordance with the fact and insufficient to give the law court jurisdiction to hear the above-entitled matter:

"It is mutually agreed between counsel for all parties hereto that the record of the printed case shall be taken to read:

"'Exceptions taken below to all questions of law material to the decision of the presiding justice as rendered. Failure to seasonably perfect exceptions waived, same to be taken as perfected upon filing in the law court of this stipulation assented to by the presiding justice below.' It is further mutually agreed that argument shall be in writing, on both sides, under the rule 30-30-10. Dated this thirteenth day of June, 1926."

The law court in this state is not a constitutional court, but is one created by statute, and has that jurisdiction only which the statute has conferred upon it, and that is a limited jurisdiction. It has no other authority. The court cannot properly extend its statutory powers. Stenographer Cases, 100 Me. 275, 61 A. 782; Mather v. Cunningham, 106 Me....