Stevens v. Shaw
| Decision Date | 08 December 1885 |
| Citation | 77 Me. 566,1 A. 743 |
| Parties | STEVENS and others v. SHAW. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Thos. H. B. Pierce, for plaintiffs.
Josiah Crosby and V. A. Sprague, for defendant.
We regard the ruling as correct. We do not see that the statutory provision which requires an assignee to indorse his name on a writ or process was intended for bills in equity. Rev. St. c. 82, §§ 128, 129. There would be an incongruity in it. The statute requires judgment for costs to go against the assignee and the assignor jointly, if the other side prevails. But whether costs shall be awarded or not, in a case in equity, is for the court to determine as a matter in its discretion. An assignee can be included as a party in a bill in equity when he could not be in an action at law. There is a plausibility in the defendant's position, still we think the motion should be denied. A question arises whether a bill of exceptions can be heard in this court before a case in equity comes up for a final hearing. Generally it would be an irregular proceeding; but the peculiar character of the present question hardly admits of postponement, if any benefit is to be derived from it by the moving party. We think it would not be an infraction of the rules usually regulating equity proceedings to give these exceptions a privileged position on the docket. It is authorized by the example furnished in the case of Spaulding v. Farwell, 62 Me. 319. Exceptions overruled.
1 Reported by Baker, Baker & Cornish, Esqs., of the Augusta bar.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bean v. Cent. Maine Power Co.
...position on the docket. It is authorized by the example furnished in the case of Spaulding v. Farwell, 62 Me. 319." Stevens v. Shaw, 77 Me. 566, 1 A. 743, 744. "The rule laid down in Stevens v. Shaw, 77 Me. 566, 1 A. 743, is that it is irregular to hear exceptions in an equity cause before ......
-
Northeast Inv. Co., Inc. v. Leisure Living Communities, Inc.
...the question involved hardly admits of postponement, if any benefit is to be derived from it by the aggrieved party. See Stevens v. Shaw, 1885, 77 Me. 566, 1 A. 743 (compelling the indorsement of the name and residence of the assignee on the writ); Munsey, Executor v. Groves, 1955, 151 Me. ......
-
Munsey v. Groves
...a case in equity comes up for a final hearing. R.S.1954, Chap. 107, Sec. 26; Whitehouse, Equity Practice, Sec. 617, Page 647; Stevens v. Shaw, 77 Me. 566, 1 A. 743; City of Bath v. Palmer, 90 Me. 467, 38 A. 365. Where, however, it is deemed to be more in the interests of justice that the qu......
-
Northland Industries, Inc. v. Kennebec Mills Corp.
...as to Michaud and a resolution of the issue did not admit of postponement if he was to receive any benefit from it. See Stevens v. Shaw, 77 Me. 566, 567, 1 A. 743, 744; Munsey v. Groves, 151 Me. 200, 117 A.2d 64; Socec v. Maine Turnpike Authority, 152 Me. 326, 328, 129 A.2d 212, 213. No app......