Caleb v. Hearn
This text of 72 Me. 231 (Caleb v. Hearn) 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.
Opinion
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
72 Me. 231, 1881 Me. LEXIS 70, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caleb-v-hearn-me-1881.