National Advertising Co. v. Inhabitants of Town of York
| Decision Date | 08 October 1975 |
| Citation | 345 A.2d 512 |
| Parties | NATIONAL ADVERTISING COMPANY v. INHABITANTS OF the TOWN OF YORK and Maine State Highway Commission. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Marden, Dubord, Bernier & Chandler by Albert L. Bernier, Waterville, for plaintiff.
Sewall, Strater & Hancock by Frank E. Hancock, York, Lester A. Olson, State of Maine, Dept. of Transportation, Augusta, for defendants.
Before DuFRESNE, C. J., and WEATHERBEE, POMEROY, WERNICK, ARCHIBALD and DELAHANTY, JJ.
Plaintiff National Advertising Company has appealed from a judgment entered in the Superior Court (York County) in favor of defendants, Inhabitants of the Town of York and Maine State Highway Commission.
Because appropriate proceedings were not taken below to preserve for appellate cognizance the points plaintiff now seeks to have considered, we hold that furtherance of a sound appellate practice requires that we deny the appeal without reaching the merits of plaintiff's claims.
On March 15, 1969, defendant Town of York adopted an ordinance restricting off-premises outdoor advertising. Prior to the passage of this ordinance, on January 1, 1969, plaintiff had been issued permits by the defendant Maine State Highway Commission for the erection of three signs in York. 1 Plaintiff had also entered into contractual arrangements concerning the signs but had not erected any of the signs by the effective date of the ordinance. One sign, however, was ultimately fully erected by the plaintiff following passage of the ordinance. 2
On January 1, 1970, pursuant to the terms of 32 M.R.S.A. § 2758, 3 the State Highway Commission refused to renew the the permits previously obtained by the plaintiff. In February, 1970, moreover, the Selectmen of the Town of York notified the plaintiff that unless the Yoken's sign (and posts for a second sign) were removed by March 1, 1970, the Town would itself arrange their removal.
Plaintiff then commenced this action seeking damages and an injunction to enjoin the Town from prohibiting the advertising signs for which the 1969 permits had been obtained and require the Highway Commission to issue 'renewal permits' for 1970.
On June 25, 1970, all parties agreed to refer the case to a court-designated referee, specifically reserving the right to object to acceptance of the referee's report. On the same date a referee was appointed by the Court pursuant to Rule 53 of the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure. Pending the issuance of the referee's report, the Court granted a Temporary Restraining Order prohibiting removal of the signs and posts already erected.
On January 18, 1971, the referee filed his findings of fact and conclusions of law, rejecting plaintiff's contention that it had acquired a 'vested right' in the signs in question immune from the effects of the York ordinance. Specifically, the referee reported:
'I find that plaintiff's prayers for a permanent injunction against defendant, Town of York, should be denied, and that an order requiring the defendant, State Highway Commission, to issue renewal permits, . . . should also be denied.
'I further find that judgments should be rendered for defendants, Town of York and State Highway Commission respectively.'
Under Rule 53 M.R.C.P. plaintiff, if dissatisfied with the referee's report had ten days 'after being served with notice of the filing of the report' to tender written objections. In the instant case the referee's report was filed on January 18, 1971 and copies of the findings were on the same date issued to counse...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McNicholas v. York Beach Village Corp.
...to grant relief except on the basis of what was argued and decided in the court below. See National Advertising Company v. Inhabitants of Town of York, Me., 345 A.2d 512, 514 (1975). Since the above-quoted colloquy appears to limit the relief requested in the court below to an adjudication ......
-
Concord General Mut. Ins. Co. v. Home Indem. Co.
...have failed adequately to preserve for appellate scrutiny, as of right, errors in the referee's report.' National Adv. Co. v. Inhobitants of Town of York, 345 A.2d 512, 514 (Me.1975). See also Adams v. Alley, 340 A.2d 201, 206 Home filed no objections to the acceptance of the Referee's repo......
-
Mandarelli v. McGovern
...appellate review, because of his failure to submit the question for decision at the trial level. National Advertising Company v. Inhabitants of Town of York, Me., 345 A.2d 512 (1975); Walsh v. City of Brewer, Me., 315 A.2d 200 (1974); Reville v. Reville, Me., 289 A.2d 695 (1972); Younie v. ......
-
State, ex rel. Tierney v. Ford Motor Co.
...Me., 394 A.2d 264, 268 (1978). See In re Estate of Thompson, Me., 414 A.2d 881, 890 (1980); National Advertising Company v. Inhabitants of the Town of York, Me., 345 A.2d 512, 514 (1975). Although we have recognized in the past that reports pursuant to Rule 72(c) may serve the cause of just......