Bliss v. Judkins

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Bliss v. Judkins

84 A. 266, 109 Me. 558, 1912 Me. LEXIS 90

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine·Decided July 17, 1912·Published

Opinion

This proceeding, though somewhat irregular in both form and substance, appears to have been brought under Equity Rule XXXIX, which provides for an application to the discretion of the court for a re-hearing in an [559]*559Equity cause. In the petition, the court is asked to review and modify its opinion and decision announced December 22, 1910, in Bliss v. Judkins, 107 Maine, 425. Bill dismissed with costs.

Chauncey W. Hackett, Arthur Sewall, J. 0. Bradbury, for plaintiff. Cleaves, Waterhouse & Emery, for defendants.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

This proceeding, though somewhat irregular in both form and substance, appears to have been brought under Equity Rule XXXIX, which provides for an application to the discretion of the court for a re-hearing in an [559]*559Equity cause. In the petition, the court is asked to review and modify its opinion and decision announced December 22, 1910, in Bliss v. Judkins, 107 Maine, 425. Bill dismissed with costs.

Chauncey W. Hackett, Arthur Sewall, J. 0. Bradbury, for plaintiff. Cleaves, Waterhouse & Emery, for defendants.

Bliss v. Judkins, 84 A. 266, 109 Me. 558, 1912 Me. LEXIS 90 (Me. 1912).

Pincite

84 A. 266 (Bliss v. Judkins) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.