Cross v. Clement

70 Me. 502, 1880 Me. LEXIS 16
CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine
DecidedJanuary 23, 1880
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 70 Me. 502 (Cross v. Clement) 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
Cross v. Clement, 70 Me. 502, 1880 Me. LEXIS 16 (Me. 1880).

Opinion

Peters, J.

An award of referees in a case of bastardy was returned to court in an irregular form and accepted, and the case was dropped from the docket, nothing more then being done about it. After the lapse of se veral terms of court, upon motion and due notice thereon, the case was ordered to be restored to the docket and re-committed to the referees. No person but the parties could be aifected by this proceeding. Bail had been discharged. Nor had judgment been fully made up. No order of affiliation had been passed, and no bond for the support of the child given or applied for. In that condition of things, the case might well have remained upon the docket until finally disposed of; unripe fruit lingering on the tree beyond its season. West v. Jordan, 62 Maine, 484. Lothrop v. Page, 26 Maine, 119. Riley v. Farnsworth, 116 Mass. 223.

Exceptions overruled.

Appleton, C. J., Barrows, Daneorth, Virgin and Symonds, JJ., concurred.

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

Related

Freezer v. Miller
176 S.E. 159 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1934)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
70 Me. 502, 1880 Me. LEXIS 16, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cross-v-clement-me-1880.