Wilson v. Littlefield

• Decision Date: 07 April 1920
• Citation: 109 A. 394
• Parties: WILSON v. LITTLEFIELD.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

109 A. 394

WILSON

v. LITTLEFIELD.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

April 7, 1920.

Appeal from Supreme Judicial Court, Piscataquis County, in Equity.

Proceeding in equity by Rose E. Ames Wilson against Charles H. Littlefield, as executor, for an accounting of the sum due on a mortgage. From a decree fixing the sum due, defendant appeals. Appeal dismissed, and decree affirmed.

Argued before SPEAR, HANSON, PHILBROOK, MORRILL, WILSON, and DEASY, JJ.

Gillin & Gillin, of Bangor, for plaintiff.

Hudson & Hudson, of Guilford, for defendant.

PHILBROOK, J. This is a proceeding in equity under the provisions of R. S. c. 95, § 15, demanding of the executor of a mortgage a true account of the sum due on the mortgage, and of the rents and profits, and money expended in repairs and improvements, if any, and offering to pay the sum found to be equitably due in full discharge of the mortgage. The case was heard before a single justice, without a jury, and a finding and decree made and signed in which it was ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the plaintiff should pay to the defendant the sum of $129.11 within a prescribed time. The closing paragraph of the decree is:

"A transcript of the testimony in the case is filed as part of this decree, and my findings are expressly declared to be pro forma."

The defendant, claiming a larger sum to be due on the mortgage, seasonably filed notice of and perfected his appeal. In his brief counsel for defendant says:

"We wish, however, to call the attention of the court that the decision of the justice was pro forma, and not on the merits of the case. We therefore do not have the burden of showing that the decision of the justice was clearly wrong, but claim that we are here as though the case had come up on report, in which event the burden would still be on the plaintiff to make out her case by a fair preponderance of the evidence."

The statutes of our state, in some measure, limit, extend, define, and prescribe the procedure in equity cases so far as practice in our court is concerned. As to report, R. S. c. 82, § 25, provides that—

"Upon a hearing in any cause in equity, the justice hearing the same may report the cause to the next term of the law court, if he is of the opinion that any question of law is involved, of sufficient importance or doubt to justify the same, and the parties agree thereto."

Thus it will be observed that in order to report an equity case to the law court two elements must be present:...