Nash v. Inhabitants of Sorrento

CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine (US)
Citation107 A. 32
Decision Date26 June 1919

Report from Bar Harbor Municipal Court, at Law.

Action by Vivian Nash against the Inhabitants of Sorrento. Case reported. Judgment for defendant.

Argued before CORNISH, C. J., and SPEAR, HANSON, DUNN, WILSON, and DEASY, JJ.

Percy L. Aiken, of Bangor, for plaintiff.

W. B. Blalsdell, of Sullivan, for defendant.

DEASY, J. Action brought by the wife of a man in the United Stares naval service against the town of Sorrento to recover "state aid" of $4 per week, provided by chapter 276 of the Laws of 1917.

The act provides, in substance, that the state aid, so called, shall in the first instance be paid by towns, and that the towns shall be reimbursed by the state.

Section 10 of chapter 276 is as follows:

"If any city, town or plantation, or the municipal officers thereof, shall neglect or refuse to comply with the provisions of this act according to its true intent and meaning, and to the satisfaction of the governor and council, such city, town or plantation, or the municipal officers thereof, as the case may be, shall forfeit and pay the sum of one hundred dollars, one half to the use of the aggrieved party and one half to the county where the cause is tried, to be recovered by an action on the case in any court proper to try the same."

Where a statute creates a new right, but provides no remedy for its enforcement, a remedy exists by implication. Stearns v. Railroad Co., 46 Me. 95; Rackliff v. Greenbush, 93 Me. 99, 44 Atl. 375; Ricker Classical Institute v. Mapleton, 101 Me. 553, 64 Atl. 948.

If, however, the statute conferring the right provides a remedy, such remedy is ordinarily exclusive. Pollock v. Eastern Railroad Co., 124 Mass. 158; Thayer v. Kitchen, 200 Mass. 382, 86 N. E. 952; Great Western Co. v. State, 181 Ind. 28, 102 N. E. 849, 103 N. E. 843; Evers v. Davis, 86 N. J. Law, 196, 90 Atl. 677; Schmidt v. Milwaukee, 149 Wis. 367, 135 N. W. 883; State v. Western & A. R. Co., 136 Ga. 619, 71 S. E. 1055; Farmers' National Bank v. Deering, 91 U. S. 29, 23 L. Ed. 196; Yates v. Jones National Bank, 206 U. S. 158, 27 Sup. Ct. 638, 51 L. Ed. 1002.

There is a further class of cases holding that, where statutes do not create new rights, but are merely declaratory of common-law rights, remedies provided by such statutes are cumulative, and not exclusive. Train v. Boston Disinfecting Co., 144 Mass. 523, 11 N. E. 929, 59 Am. Rep. 113; Pollock v. Eastern Railroad Co., 124 Mass. 158; King v. Viscolold Company, 219 Mass. 420, 106 N. E. 988, Ann. Cas. 1916D, 1170; Field v....

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Ehrhart v. King Cnty., 96464-5
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • April 2, 2020 a new right and no specific remedy, the common law will provide a remedy." (citing Nash v. Inhabitants of Sorrento , 118 Me. 224, 107 A. 32 (1919) )); see generally Bennett v. Hardy , 113 Wash.2d 912, 921-21, 784 P.2d 1258 (1990) (setting out three-step inquiry for when a tort claim m......
  • Million v. Metro. Cas. Ins. Co. , 13886.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • September 8, 1930
    ...Milwaukee, 149 Wis. 367, 135 N. W. 883;Singer, etc., Co. v. Teasley, 198 Ala. 673, 73 So. 969;Nash v. Inhabitants of Sorrento, 118 Me. 224, 107 A. 32;Osgood v. Names, 191 Iowa, 1227, 184 N. W. 331; Cook v. Lehigh Valley R. Co. (Sup.) 181 N. E. S. 217; Bailey v. Colleen Products Co., 120 Mis......
  • State ex rel. Breslin v. Todd, 28316.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • April 28, 1941
    ...Mill & Power Co., 14 R.I. 380; Heeney v. Sprague, 11 R.I. [8 Wn.2d 485] 456, 23 Am.Rep. 502; Nash v. Inhabitants of Sorrento, 118 Me. 224, 107 A. 32; Jefferson County Farm Bureau v. Sherman, 208 Iowa 614, 226 N.W. 182; Johnson v. Brigham Co., 126 Me. 108, 136 A. 456; Employers' Liability As......
  • King Resources Co. v. Environmental Imp. Commission
    • United States
    • Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US)
    • November 19, 1970
    ...we must assume the Legislature intended the same to be exclusive and not cumulative. Nash v. Inhabitants of Sorrento, 1919, 118 Me. 224, 107 A. 32; Jameson v. Cunningham, 1936, 134 Me. 134, 183 A. 131. We continue to subscribe to this Furthermore, in Stanton v. Trustees of St. Joseph's Coll......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT