Camp Maqua Young Women's Christian Ass'n v. Inhabitants of Poland

157 A. 859, 130 Me. 485, 1931 Me. LEXIS 121
CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine
DecidedDecember 15, 1931
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 157 A. 859 (Camp Maqua Young Women's Christian Ass'n v. Inhabitants of Poland) 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
Camp Maqua Young Women's Christian Ass'n v. Inhabitants of Poland, 157 A. 859, 130 Me. 485, 1931 Me. LEXIS 121 (Me. 1931).

Opinion

Thaxter, J.

This was an action brought to recover from the' defendant town the taxes paid by the plaintiff for the years 1924 to 1930 inclusive with interest at six per cent. The basis of the claim is that the plaintiff is a benevolent and charitable corporation organized under the laws of Maine and is exempt from taxation.

[486]*486The case was referred with right of exceptions reserved. The referee found for the plaintiff in the sum of $6,094.77 ; and at the September Term, 1931, this report was accepted and the defendant excepted.

Under the provisions of Rule XLII of the Supreme Judicial and Superior Courts, the right to except to a decision of a referee on questions of law may be reserved. The adoption of this rule on December 1, 1930, changed the practice which had been in force since the promulgation of Rule XLV in 1908, under the provisions of which no stipulation for a review of the finding of a referee on a question of law was permitted.

Rule XXI, which has been in effect since at least 1855, provides for the procedure which should be followed in objecting to the allowance of the report of a referee. It reads as follows :

“Objections to any report offered to the court for acceptance, shall be made in writing and filed with the clerk and shall set forth specifically the grounds of the objections, and these only shall be considered by the court.”

In this case the defendant has filed no objections in writing in accordance with this rule. The invariable practice in this state has been that there must be a strict compliance with its provisions, if the exceptions are to be considered by this court. Bucksport v. Buck, 89 Me., 320; Witzler v. Collins, 70 Me., 290; Maberry v. Morse, 43 Me., 176.

We might add, however, that were the merits of the case to be decided by us, we should be constrained to hold that the decision of the referee was correct.

7 Exception overruled.

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

Related

Estate of Erica J. O'Donnell
2024 ME 20 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2024)
Brewster v. Churchill
88 A.2d 585 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1952)
Depositors Trust Co. v. Bruneau
66 A.2d 86 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1949)
Moores v. Inhabitants of Springfield
64 A.2d 569 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1949)
Bradford v. Davis
56 A.2d 68 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1947)
Throumoulos v. First National Bank
169 A. 307 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1933)
Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance v. Pettapiece
165 A. 375 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1933)
Lincoln v. Hall
162 A. 267 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1932)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
157 A. 859, 130 Me. 485, 1931 Me. LEXIS 121, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/camp-maqua-young-womens-christian-assn-v-inhabitants-of-poland-me-1931.