Klopot v. Scuik
| Decision Date | 19 October 1932 |
| Parties | KLOPOT v. SCUIK et al. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Superior Court, Kennebec County.
Action of assumpsit by Sophie Klopot against John Scuik and another. Defendant Scuik's plea to the jurisdiction was overruled, and he brings exceptions.
Exceptions dismissed.
Argued before PATTANGALL, C. J., and DUNN, STURGIS, BARNES, and THAXTER, JJ.
Carleton & Carleton, of Winthrop, for plaintiff.
Herbert E. Foster, of Winthrop, for defendants.
This action of assumpsit, begun by trustee process, was entered at the October term, 1931, of the superior court for Kennebec county, and at the following term the defendant, appearing specially, filed a plea to the jurisdiction denying legal service of the process. At the June term, 1932, the defendant's plea was overruled and an exception, then allowed, was forthwith certified to this court. The defendant did not plead over, nor was the case closed.
The exception is brought to this court prematurely. When his plea, directed to the jurisdiction, was overruled and an exception taken, the defendant had the right to answer over on the merits. Rev. St. c. 96. f 37. Unless he refused to exercise that right or otherwise waived it, the duty of the presiding justice was to "proceed and close the trial," whereupon the case would stand continued on the docket of the trial court, marked "Law." Rev. St. c. 91, § 28. The case could not be properly certified to the Law Court until its rescript would be decisive and final. This rule of practice was approved under earlier statutes in pari materia in Stowell v. Hooper, 121 Me. 152, 116 A. 256. It remains in force under the present statutes.
Exceptions dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Melanson
...affirmed in Hutchins v. Libby, 149 Me. 371, 377, 103 A.2d 117; Augusta Trust Co. v. Glidden, 133 Me. 241, 242, 175 A. 912; Klopot v. Scuik, 131 Me. 499, 162 A. 782. In Klopot v. Scuik, supra, defendant did not plead over nor was case closed. Augusta Trust Co. v. Glidden, supra, after holdin......
-
Jordan v. McKay
...by assessing the damages. Not till then could the cause be properly certified to the Law Court. Rev. St. 1930, e. 91, § 28; Klopot v. Scuik, 131 Me. 499, 162 A. 782. The exceptions, taken to the procedure followed, are accordingly without The service objected to in this case was made in the......
-
Estabrook v. Ford Motor Co.
...plea is filed in accordance with the rule. Maine Bank v. Hervey, 21 Me. 38; Stowell v. Hooper, 121 Me. 152, 116 A. 256; Klopot v. Scuik, 131 Me. 499, 162 A. 782. If the defendant does not answer over and is no want of jurisdiction apparent on inspection of the record, a default may be enter......
-
In re Greybull Valley Irr. Dist.
... ... J. S. 180, 233; Jacobson v. Trust Co. (Ariz.) 234 P ... 563; Cone v. Hunter (Ga.App.) 142 S.E. 468; Hall ... v. Roehr (Ga.) 79 S.E. 379; Klopot v. Scuik ... (Me.) 162 A. 782; Burdick v. Mann (N. D.) 231 ... N.W. 545; Baird v. Lefor (N. D.) 201 N.W. 997; Sec ... 89-4801, R. S. 1931; Bock ... ...