Donnell v. Gatchell

38 Me. 217
CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine
DecidedJuly 1, 1854
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 38 Me. 217 (Donnell v. Gatchell) 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
Donnell v. Gatchell, 38 Me. 217 (Me. 1854).

Opinion

Shepley, C. J.

— The question presented is, whether this suit is within the exceptions to the operation of the statute of limitations, c. 146, § 12, permitting suits, commenced within six months after an abatement or defect of a former suit for the same cause of action, to be maintained.

It is alleged in argument, that it was the intention to permit a new suit to be maintained, whenever the first suit had been abated for any cause, or defeated for matter of form.

Writs may be abated on trial of issues of fact, and for causes which would prevent the maintenance of any suit for the same cause of action, between the same parties on the [219]*219same facts. It does not appear to have been the intention to suspend for six months the operation of the statute of limitations -in such cases, to allow another action to be commenced. The statute only allows another action to be commenced within that time, when a writ has been abated or an action defeated for any matter of form or by the death of either party.”

The writ in the former action was not abated for any matter of form, but because it appeared upon inspection to have been commenced and made returnable in the county of Lincoln, when it should have been in the county of Cumberland.

This action not having been commenced within six years after the cause of action accrued, is barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff nonsuit,

Tenney, Appleton and Cutting, J. J., concurred.

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

Related

Oppenheim v. Hutchinson
2007 ME 73 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2007)
Edmison v. Crutsinger
1933 OK 422 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1933)
Conrad v. McCall
226 S.W. 265 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1920)
Gaines v. . City of New York
109 N.E. 594 (New York Court of Appeals, 1915)
Fay v. Costa
83 P. 275 (California Court of Appeal, 1905)
McCan v. E. Conery & Son
12 F. 315 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Louisiana, 1882)
Hill's Adm'r v. Huckabee's Adm'r
70 Ala. 183 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1881)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
38 Me. 217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/donnell-v-gatchell-me-1854.