Dartmouth Company v. Day's, Inc.

419 A.2d 366, 1980 Me. LEXIS 657
CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine
DecidedSeptember 15, 1980
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 419 A.2d 366 (Dartmouth Company v. Day's, Inc.) 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
Dartmouth Company v. Day's, Inc., 419 A.2d 366, 1980 Me. LEXIS 657 (Me. 1980).

Opinion

GLASSMAN, Justice.

Plaintiff-appellant, The Dartmouth Company, appeals from an order of the Superior Court, Cumberland County, denying a motion for approval of attachment and trustee process. Having jurisdiction under the collateral order exception to the final judgment rule, see Northeast Investment Co. v. Leisure Living Communities, Inc., Me., 351 A.2d 845, 849 (1976); Foisy v. Bishop, Me., 232 A.2d 797, 798 (1967), we affirm the order of the Superior Court.

*367 In order to be entitled to prejudgment attachment and/or trustee process, the plaintiff must demonstrate by affidavit or otherwise a reasonable likelihood of success. M.R.Civ.P. 4A(c) (attachment); M.R. Civ.P. 4B(c) (trustee process); see Northeast Investment Co. v. Leisure Living Communities, Inc., supra, 351 A.2d at 851-52. Dartmouth predicates its right to relief on an assignment of a lease and incorporated agreement between P.H. & J.M. Brown Company as lessor and Day’s, Inc. as lessee. The answer of Day’s, Inc. denies the fact of the assignment upon information and belief. No evidence by way of affidavit or otherwise was offered in the Superior Court as to the existence of the assignment upon which Dartmouth’s right to relief is predicated. Therefore, Dartmouth failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of success on its complaint. 1

The entry is:

Order denying approval of attachment and trustee process affirmed.

All concurring.

1

. There is a suggestion in the record that the presiding Justice believed he had discretion to deny the motion for attachment and trustee process, despite the likelihood of success, if he concluded the defendant would have more than sufficient assets to satisfy any anticipated judgment. Of course, there is no such discretion when ruling upon a motion for attachment or trustee process after notice. See M.R.Civ.P. 4A(c); M.R.Civ.P. 4B(c). There is a requirement of need when seeking an ex parte attachment or trustee process. See M.R.Civ.P. 4A(f); M.R.Civ.P. 4B(h).

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

Related

Hopkins v. Curtis
Maine Superior, 2002
Ricci v. Key Bancshares of Maine, Inc.
662 F. Supp. 1132 (D. Maine, 1987)
Burns v. Smith
495 A.2d 777 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1985)
Xaphes v. Mowry
478 A.2d 299 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1984)
Maine National Bank v. Anderschat
462 A.2d 482 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1983)
Anderson v. Kennebec River Pulp & Paper Co.
433 A.2d 752 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
419 A.2d 366, 1980 Me. LEXIS 657, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dartmouth-company-v-days-inc-me-1980.