Throumoulos v. First Nat. Bank of Biddeford

• Decision Date: 12 December 1933
• Citation: 169 A. 307
• Parties: THROUMOULOS v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF BIDDEFORD.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

169 A. 307

THROUMOULOS

v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF BIDDEFORD.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Dec. 12, 1933.

Exceptions from Superior Court, York County.

Action for money had and received by Louis E. Throumoulos against the First National Bank of Biddeford. The report of the referee in favor of plaintiff was approved by the justice of the superior court, and defendant brings exceptions.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Willard & Willard, of Sanford, and Wesley M. Mewer, of Old Orchard, for plaintiff.

Waterhouse, Titcomb & Siddall, of Sanford, for defendant.

THAXTER, Justice.

This action for money had and received was brought in the superior court and referred with the right to exceptions in matters of law reserved. The referee rendered judgment for the plaintiff, and objections in writing to the acceptance of the report were filed by the defendant. The report was approved by the justice of the superior court, and exceptions were taken by the defendant.

The first ground of alleged error is that the "plaintiff has failed to substantiate a finding in his favor by a fair preponderance of said testimony." This objection cannot avail the defendant, for, if there is any evidence to support the findings of fact of the referee, exceptions will not lie. Staples v. Littlefield, 132 Me. 91, 167 A. 171.

The second, third, and fourth objections are that the report is against law, that the report is against evidence, that the report is manifestly against the weight of evidence. These were properly overruled by the presiding justice.

Rule XXI of the Supreme Judicial and superior courts reads as follows: "Objections to any report offered to the court for acceptance, shall be made in writing and filed with the clerk and shall set forth specifically the grounds of the objections, and these only shall be considered by the court."

The grounds of objection as filed are not specific, but general, and cannot be considered. Inhabitants of Bucksport v. Buck, 89 Me. 320, 36 A. 456; Witzler v. Collins, 70 Me. 290, 35 Am. Rep. 327; Maberry v. Morse, 43 Me. 176; Camp Maqua Young Women's Christian Association v. Inhabitants of Town of Poland, 130 Me. 485, 157 A. 859; Lincoln v. Hall, 131 Me. 310, 162 A. 267. The parties have selected their own tribunal to try this case, and under such circumstances are held to a strict compliance with the provisions of the statutes and of the rules of court governing the...