Day v. Chandler

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Day v. Chandler

65 Me. 366, 1876 Me. LEXIS 72

DecidedMay 31, 1876

StatusPublished

This text of 65 Me. 366 (Day v. Chandler) 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

Day v. Chandler, 65 Me. 366, 1876 Me. LEXIS 72 (Me. 1876).

Pincite

Opinion

Libbey, J.

This case is an appeal by the trustee from the judgment of the trial justice against him. At the second term the plaintiff filed amotion to dismiss the appeal for the reason that the trustee had no right of appeal and this court had no jurisdiction. The motion was overruled and the plaintiff filed exceptions. The motion is in the nature of a dilatory plea ; overruling it did not end the suit, but kept it in court for further proceedings. In such case the exceptions should await the final disposition of the case. The court should have proceeded and closed the case and then if plaintiff was aggrieved it should have been marked law and continued. It is improperly entered on the law docket. Ii. S., c. 77, § 22. State v. Inness, 53 Maine, 536.

Dismissed from the law docket.

Appleton, C. J., Walton, Barrows and Daneorth, JJ., concurred.

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

Libbey, J.

This case is an appeal by the trustee from the judgment of the trial justice against him. At the second term the plaintiff filed amotion to dismiss the appeal for the reason that the trustee had no right of appeal and this court had no jurisdiction. The motion was overruled and the plaintiff filed exceptions. The motion is in the nature of a dilatory plea ; overruling it did not end the suit, but kept it in court for further proceedings. In such case the exceptions should await the final disposition of the case. The court should have proceeded and closed the case and then if plaintiff was aggrieved it should have been marked law and continued. It is improperly entered on the law docket. Ii. S., c. 77, § 22. State v. Inness, 53 Maine, 536.

Dismissed from the law docket.

Appleton, C. J., Walton, Barrows and Daneorth, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 Me. 366, 1876 Me. LEXIS 72, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/day-v-chandler-me-1876.