Inhabitants of Farmington v. Hobert
| Decision Date | 16 February 1883 |
| Citation | 74 Me. 416 |
| Parties | INHABITANTS OF FARMINGTON v. DANIEL P. HOBERT and another. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
ON EXCEPTIONS.
Debt on bond of Daniel P. Hobert and Joel Hobert to " Louis Voter, treasurer of the town of Farmington," dated March 10, 1873. The writ was dated April 18, 1878. The presiding justice ruled that the action could not be maintained and ordered that a nonsuit be entered, and the plaintiffs alleged exceptions.
S Clifford Belcher, for the plaintiffs.
It is settled that a contract not under seal may be enforced by a town or corporation, though made with an officer thereof. New Castle v. Bellard, 3 Me. 369; Garland v. Reynolds, 20 Me. 45; Irish v Webster, 5 Me. 171.
It is said that an action on a bond can be maintained at common law only by the obligee or his legal representative.
But in Fairfax v. Soule, 10 Vt. 154, it is held that an action may be sustained in the name of the inhabitants of the town on a bond given to the selectmen of the town. See Bradley v. Baldwin, 5 Conn. 288.
In Hopkins v. Plainfield, 7 Conn. 286, where a bond like the one in suit was given the town treasurer, it was held that a bond given to the town treasurer, is in law a bond to the town, and that a suit may be maintained on such a bond in the name of the inhabitants of the town.
In this last case the aid of no statute was invoked, but the decision was based on the law, reason and justice.
H Belcher, for the defendants.
This is an action on a bond given to Louis Voter, treasurer of the town of Farmington, to indemnify the town against the costs in certain suits pending against it.
At the trial at nisi prius, the presiding justice ordered a nonsuit on the ground that the action should have been brought in the name of the obligee.
The contract was under seal. In such case none but a party can maintain an action upon it. Flynn v. N. A. Life Ins. Co. 115 Mass. 449. The legal title is in the obligee, and the action must be in his name. When the bond is for the use of the town, but running to the commonwealth, no action can be maintained in the name of the town, though the forfeiture will accrue to its benefit. Inhabitants of North Hampton v. Elwell, 4 Gray 81. An action on a contract with the warden of the state prison of Maine in his name, cannot be maintained in the name of the state. State of Maine v. Gould, 11 Met. 221.
Where the contract is by an agent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hitch v. Stonebraker
... ... Kan. 15; People v. Harper, 91 Ill. 357; Forrest ... v. O'Donnel, 42 Mich. 556; Farmington v ... Hobart, 74 Me. 416; Bauer v. Cabanne, 105 Mo ... 110; Nofsinger v. Hartnett, 84 Mo. 549; ... ...
-
Bowers v. American Surety Co.
...v. Toland, 7 Har. & J. (Md.) 3; Wilson v. Donnelly, 19 R. I. 113, 31 A. 966; People v. Laidlaw, 120 Mich. 358, 79 N. W. 576; Farmington v. Hobert, 74 Me. 416; Henricus v. Englert, 137 N. Y. 488, 33 N. E. 550; Owens v. Ga. L. Ins. Co., 165 Ky. 507, 177 S. W. 294. Moreover, this rule has been......
-
City of Lancaster v. Frescoln
...Lewis v. Covillaud, 21 Cal. 178; Moore v. House, 64 Ill. 162; Gautzert v. Hoge, 73 Ill. 30; Sandusky v. Neal, 2 Ill.App. 624; Farmington v. Hobert, 74 Me. 416; Flynn Ins. Co., 115 Mass. 449; Cocks v. Varney, 45 N.J. Eq. 72; Loeb v. Barris, 50 N.J.L. 382; Read v. Young, 1 D. Chip. (Vt.) 244;......
-
Carleton v. Bird
...pay royalties. Where the contract is under seal, the legal title is in the obligee, and the action must be brought in his name. Farmiugton v. Hobert, 74 Me. 416. And, although the covenant under seal with one person is expressed to be for the benefit of another, an action for its breach mus......