J. R. Watkins Med. Co. v. Stahl

• Decision Date: 15 March 1918
• Citation: 103 A. 70,117 Me. 190
• Parties: J. R. WATKINS MEDICAL CO. v. STAHL et al.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

103 A. 70

117 Me. 190

J. R. WATKINS MEDICAL CO.

v. STAHL et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

March 15, 1918.

Exceptions from Supreme Judicial Court, Lincoln County, at Law.

Action by the J. R. Watkins Medical Company against D. O. Stahl and W. R. Walter.A verdict was ordered for plaintiff, and defendants bring exceptions.Exceptions overruled.

Argued before CORNISH, C. J., and SPEAR, HANSON, and PHILBROOK, JJ.

Edward K. Gould, of Rockland, for plaintiff.A S. Littlefield, of Rockland, for defendants.

PHILBROOK, J.This is an action against the defendants as guarantors for R. M. Stahl in a written contract of guaranty with plaintiff.The presiding justice ordered a verdict for plaintiff, and the case comes forward upon defendants' exceptions to this ruling.

The record presents what is declared to be "the substance of the evidence in the case so far as it affects the question of liability, and the instructed verdict, and is to be taken as the evidence."

We have recently and frequently held that, when a verdict is directed, and exceptions are taken, all of the evidence necessarily becomes a part of the case on exceptions, whether it is mentioned in the bill of exceptions or not.Such a ruling is based upon the entire evidence, and will stand unless it is shown to be erroneous.The burden is on the excepting party to show that it is erroneous, and that he is aggrieved.And it cannot be determined without an examination of all the evidence, for it may be that the errors complained of are cured, or the omission supplied, by the evidence omitted in making up the case.People's National Bank v. Nickerson, 108 Me. 341, 80 Atl. 849;Austin v. Baker, 112 Me. 267, 91 Atl. 1005, L. R. A. 1916F, 1130.For this reason we should be amply justified in overruling the exceptions.

But an examination of so much of the evidence as is before us seems to amply justify the order of the presiding justice which is complained of.These defendants signed a written contract...