Cummings v. Mason

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Cummings v. Mason

178 A. 927, 133 Me. 513, 1935 Me. LEXIS 48

DecidedFebruary 11, 1935

StatusPublished

This text of 178 A. 927 (Cummings v. Mason) 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

Cummings v. Mason, 178 A. 927, 133 Me. 513, 1935 Me. LEXIS 48 (Me. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

None but issues of fact presented by the record in this case. The evidence is con-[514]*514Aiding and that which apparently impressed the jury does not particularly appeal to us. But we can not say that the position of the defense is inherently improbable or necessarily inconsistent with truth. Were the case here on report the result might be different. Coming to use on general motion the mandate must be: Motion overruled.

Albert Beliveau, for plaintiff. George A. Hutchins, Peter M. MacDonald, for defendant.

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

None but issues of fact presented by the record in this case. The evidence is con-[514]*514Aiding and that which apparently impressed the jury does not particularly appeal to us. But we can not say that the position of the defense is inherently improbable or necessarily inconsistent with truth. Were the case here on report the result might be different. Coming to use on general motion the mandate must be: Motion overruled.

Albert Beliveau, for plaintiff. George A. Hutchins, Peter M. MacDonald, for defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 A. 927, 133 Me. 513, 1935 Me. LEXIS 48, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cummings-v-mason-me-1935.