Pitcher v. Webber
| Decision Date | 05 November 1908 |
| Parties | PITCHER v. WEBBER. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
(Official.)
Exceptions from Supreme Judicial Court, Androscoggin County.
Action by J. B. Pitcher against Wallace E. Webber. Verdict for plaintiff, and defendant excepts and moves for a new trial. Motions and exceptions overruled. Judgment on verdict.
See, also, 103 Me. 101, 68 Atl. 593.
Assumpsit on account annexed to recover the sum of $750 for an automobile alleged to have been sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant.
Plea, the general issue, together with a brief statement setting up, as a defense, breach of warranty, no delivery or acceptance, the statute of frauds, and rescission; the defendant also stating in his brief statement that he claimed to recoup certain sums laid out by him on the automobile, and also to recoup "whatever expense he may be put to in the defense of this action, including a reasonable amount for counsel fees and for cost of witnesses, and for such further and special damage as he may be able to prove on the trial hereof."
This case was first tried at the April term, 1907, Supreme Judicial Court, Androscoggin County, and the plaintiff recovered a verdict for $526.25. On exceptions filed by the defendant, a new trial was ordered. See Pitcher v. Webber, 103 Me. 101, 68 Atl. 593. The case was again tried at the January term, 1908, of said court in said county. Verdict for plaintiff for $510. The defendant excepted to various rulings made by the presiding justice during the trial, and also filed a general motion for a new trial.
Argued before EMERY, C. J., and WHITEHOUSE, PEABODY, SPEAR, and BIRD, JJ.
McGlllicuddy & Morey, for plaintiff.
George C. Webber, for defendant.
This was an action to recover the agreed price of an automobile alleged to have been sold and delivered. The defendant denied acceptance, but we find in the evidence enough to warrant the verdict that there was an acceptance. The defendant further contended that the automobile was not as represented, and that, if accepted, he effected a rescission by seasonably tendering it back, which tender was refused. There was evidence, however, that the automobile was injured through the negligence of the defendant's servant after it came into his possession, which injuries were not repaired before the tender of redelivery. This evidence warranted the jury in finding there was no effectual rescission, since, to effect a rescission of a sale, the article must be redelivered or tendered...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Torrey v. Congress Square Hotel Co.
...party to show that excluded evidence was legally admissible. He must show that its exclusion was prejudicial to him.' Pitcher v. Webber, 104 Me. 401, 71 A. 1031. Both revelancy and materiality depend on probative value. If it is necessary for a jury to know a certain fact in order to reach ......
-
State v. Jutras
...was clearly erroneous and an abuse of discretion, defendant must also demonstrate that such ruling was prejudicial to it. Pitcher v. Webber, 104 Me. 401, 71 A. 1031; State v. Ouellette, 107 Me. 92, 77 A. In Wigmore on Evidence, 3d Ed., the author states: g 966 '* * * There is no doubt that ......
-
Page v. Hemingway Bros. Interstate Trucking Co.
...was clearly erroneous and an abuse of discretion, defendant must also demonstrate that such ruling was prejudicial to it. Pitcher v. Webber, 104 Me. 401, 71 A. 1031; State v. Quellette, 107 Me. 92, 77 A. The record clearly shows that the ruling of the Justice presiding was not prejudicial t......