Willet v. Clark
| Decision Date | 13 July 1907 |
| Parties | WILLET v. CLARK. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Superior Court, Cumberland County.
Action by Isaiah T. Willet against Edward R. Clark. Verdict for defendant, and plaintiff excepts. Exceptions overruled.
Trover for the conversion of four cords of wood alleged to have been taken and carried away by the defendant.
The action was brought in the Portland municipal court. Plea, the general issue. After trial had, said court rendered judgment for the plaintiff, and thereupon the defendant appealed to the Cumberland county superior court. At the trial in the superior court, it appearing that the plaintiff did not have the entire title to the wood sued for, he was allowed to amend his writ by adding the names of Grace L. Procter and E. E. Procter as parties plaintiff. The defendant then testified that the title to the land from which the wood was cut was in himself, and not in the plaintiff. The plaintiff seasonably objected to the admission of this testimony, claiming that evidence of title was not admissible under the plea of the general issue, but must be specially pleaded by brief statement or otherwise if the defendant would avail himself of such a defense. This objection was overruled, and the plaintiff excepted. At the close of his testimony, the defendant moved to amend his plea by adding the following brief statement: "And the said defendant says that at the time said property was taken the title thereto was in himself, and that, therefore, he is not guilty of taking property of said plaintiff." The plaintiff seasonably objected to the allowance of this amendment, but the objection was overruled and the amendment allowed. To this ruling the plaintiff also excepted, "claiming that, this being an appeal case, the plea must remain as it was in the lower court, as otherwise a new issue is presented to the jury in place of the original issue which was passed upon by the court below." The verdict was for the defendant.
Argued before EMERY, C. J., WHITEHOUSE, STROUT, PEABODY, CORNISH, and KING, JJ.
Emery G. Wilson, for plaintiff. George S. Murphy and Connellan & Robinson, for defendant.
This was a personal action of trover for the conversion of personal property. It was begun in the Portland municipal court, where judgment was rendered for the plaintiff, whereupon the defendant duly appealed to the superior court for Cumberland county, and duly entered his appeal. In the municipal court the only plea filed by the defendant was the general issue, but in the superior court he asked leave to add a brief statement that the title to the property described in the declaration was in himself. Leave to do this was granted against the plaintiff's objection, and he excepted.
The plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Whitehead
...Court and copy of record forwarded, and respondent is to be tried and judgment rendered de novo upon both law and fact. Willett v. Clark, 103 Me. 22, 67 A. 566; State v. Houlehan, 109 Me. 281, 284, 83 A. 1106. Revised Statutes 1954, Chapter 146, Section The exceptions taken by the responden......
-
Westbrook Trust Co. v. Swett
...heard the motion to correct the record of the Municipal Court anew and rendered its own independent judgment on the merits. Willet v. Clark, 103 Me. 22, 67 A. 566. On this record the appeal was simply dismissed. The stated conclusion of the presiding justice that the effect of the dismissal......
-
State v. Houlehan
...were offered, was vacated by appeal. Campbell v. Howard, 5 Mass. 376, 378; State v. Quinn, 96 Me. 496, 498, 52 Atl. 1009; Willett v. Clark, 103 Me. 22, 23, 67 AO. 566; Com. v. Richards, 17 Pick. (Mass.) 295, The exceptions must be sustained. In the second case, it appears that before the op......