Caleb v. Hearn

72 Me. 231, 1881 Me. LEXIS 70
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine·Decided May 18, 1881·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Barrows, J.

On demurrer. If the complainant has suffered in consequence of the misdoings of the defendant charged in the, bill, it is nevertheless indirectly, and complainant has mistaken the remedy. It should be sought by due process of law, and through a legal representative of the deceased, John O. Caleb, whose personal estate the defendant is charged with embezzling and wrongfully appropriating to his own use.

The only relief sought, is compensation in damages for a wrongfully accomplished, and done to the estate of John O. Caleb, whose administrator would have upon the facts alleged, an abundant remedy at law. The bill cannot be maintained for two reasons: 1, because of the want of a proper party plaintiff; 2, because the only party directly injured, has an adequate remedy at law. Fletcher v. Holmes, 40 Maine, 364; Crooker v. Rogers, 58 Maine, 339 ; Ins. Co. v. Hill, 60 Maine, 178. The way is open for inquiry as to the facts and an appeal to the defendant’s conscience under the provisions of R. S., c. 64, § 65, and laws of 1874, c. 168.

JDemwn-er sustained. Bill dismissed.

Appleton, C. J., Walton, Virgin, Libbey and Symonds, JJ. # concurred.

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

Caleb v. Hearn, 72 Me. 231, 1881 Me. LEXIS 70 (Me. 1881).

72 Me. 231 (Caleb v. Hearn) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

American Oil Co. v. Carlisle
63 A.2d 676 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1949)
Buchanan v. Buchanan
71 A. 745 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1909)