Summit Thread Co. v. Corthell

• Decision Date: 24 January 1934
• Citation: 171 A. 254
• Parties: SUMMIT THREAD CO. v. CORTHELL.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

171 A. 254

SUMMIT THREAD CO.

v. CORTHELL.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Jan. 24, 1934.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Androscoggin County.

Proceeding by the Summit Thread Company against Robert N. Corthell. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings exceptions.

Exceptions overruled.

Argued before PATTANGALL, C. J., and DUNN, STURGIS, BARNES, THAXTER, and HUDSON, JJ.

Clifford & Clifford, of Lewiston, for plaintiff.

Verrill, Hale, Booth & Ives, of Portland, and George W. Abele, for defendant.

PATTANGALL, Chief Justice.

On exceptions. Petition for review. The original case, Robert N. Corthell v. Summit Thread Company, 132 Me. 94, 167 A. 79, came to this court on report and resulted in judgment being ordered for plaintiff in the sum of $ 5000, with Interest from the date of the writ.

The then defendant, plaintiff in these proceedings, addressed this petition to a justice of the Superior Court, asking for a review of the case on the ground of mistake having been made by this court "in its consideration of the damages alleged to have been suffered" by defendant in review.

The record recites that in the court below the presiding justice "did not purport to pass upon the case but made a pro forma ruling denying the petition."

Plaintiff contends that the form of the ruling accompanied by the explanatory words brings the case before us unprejudiced by the action of the court below. We do not so understand the situation. Review was denied, and exceptions taken to the denial. The case is not here on report, but on exceptions. Notwithstanding the form of the decision below, the effect is exactly as though the decree had been entered after careful consideration of the merits of the controversy.

A like question arose in Wilson v. Littlefield, 119 Me. 144, 109 A. 394. This was a proceeding in equity in which the justice below found for the plaintiff and filed a decree ordering payment by defendant of $129.11. The decree contained the following recital: "A transcript of the testimony in the case is filed as part of the decree and my findings are expressly declared to be pro forma." Counsel for defendant argued that, the decision being pro forma and not on the merits, the case stood as though it had come forward on report, and that defendant was relieved from the burden of showing that the decision below was clearly wrong; the burden being still on plaintiff to make out a case by preponderating evidence. The court refused to accept this theory, saying: "We are clearly presented with an appeal and must be governed by the well established rule that in case of an appeal, in equity proceedings the burden is upon the appellant. He must show that the decree appealed from is clearly wrong, otherwise it will be affirmed."

Applying this reasoning to the instant case, we conclude that the force and effect of the finding below is as though the justice had denied the petition without the explanation given. In fact, if we did so consider it, plaintiff would have nothing upon which to base exceptions.

It has repeatedly been held in this state that a petition for review is addressed to the discretion of the court by which it is heard, and that its decision can only be revised upon exceptions to erroneous rulings in matters of law. Inhabitants of Town of Thomaston v. Starrett, 128 Me. 328, 147 A 427, and cases cited. A decree simply denying or dismissing the petition reveals no error of law, and exceptions thereto do not lie.

Our discussion of the case might well be concluded at this point, but there are certain features of these proceedings concerning which further comment seems necessary. Under our present statute, the superior court has exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions for review. We cannot agree that the authority thus given extends to cases which have been finally adjudicated in the Supreme Judicial Court sitting as a law court.

We are familiar with the case of Booth Bros. & Hurricane Island Granite Co. v. Smith, 115 Me. 89, 97 A. 826, 827. In that case motion for rehearing was filed, alleging errors in the final decision made by the law court, and abandoned; there being no provision in this state by statute or rule for such rehearing. Petition for review was then filed; the ground for relief stated being that "by inadvertence or accident an error was committed by the Law Court in overruling one of the Petitioner's exceptions." Chief Justice Savage, speaking for the court, said: "The right to a review is created by statute, and is limited to the causes specified in the statute. It may be questioned whether the statute, by proper construction, embraces the inadvertences, or accidents, or mistakes of the tribunal which has heard and decided the case. It might, perhaps, properly be held that the words 'accident' and 'mistake' relate only to the conduct and understandings or misunderstandings or misfortunes of the parties, to extraneous matters connected with the preparation and trial of the case, and not in any sense to errors in the conclusions of the court, however caused. But for the present we have no occasion to say, and do not say, that there might not be a case of such palpable mistake in apprehending the evidence in a trial at nisi prius, or the record in a case before the law court, or such failure to...