Bryant v. Carville

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Bryant v. Carville

182 A. 162, 134 Me. 493, 1936 Me. LEXIS 69

CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine

DecidedJanuary 3, 1936

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 182 A. 162 (Bryant v. Carville) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bryant v. Carville, 182 A. 162, 134 Me. 493, 1936 Me. LEXIS 69 (Me. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Actions of tort for personal injuries and consequential damages arising from [494]*494alleged assault and battery. The cases come forward on motions. The plaintiffs are husband and wife.

Berman & Berman of Lewiston, for plaintiffs. John G. Marshall, for defendants.

An examination of the record shows conflicting versions as to what took place, either of which is credible. From the testimony of a physician it is clear that the plaintiffs sustained actual physical injuries, which in the case of the wife were quite serious.

The issue was one peculiarly within the province of the jury. There is nothing to show that the jury was improperly influenced, either upon the question of liability or damages, and the cases present no meritorious reasons for disturbance of the verdicts : Motion overruled.

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

Actions of tort for personal injuries and consequential damages arising from [494]*494alleged assault and battery. The cases come forward on motions. The plaintiffs are husband and wife.

Berman & Berman of Lewiston, for plaintiffs. John G. Marshall, for defendants.

An examination of the record shows conflicting versions as to what took place, either of which is credible. From the testimony of a physician it is clear that the plaintiffs sustained actual physical injuries, which in the case of the wife were quite serious.

The issue was one peculiarly within the province of the jury. There is nothing to show that the jury was improperly influenced, either upon the question of liability or damages, and the cases present no meritorious reasons for disturbance of the verdicts : Motion overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 A. 162, 134 Me. 493, 1936 Me. LEXIS 69, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bryant-v-carville-me-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack