Heselton v. Campion

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Heselton v. Campion

89 A. 12, 111 Me. 583, 1913 Me. LEXIS 139

DecidedDecember 12, 1913

StatusPublished

This text of 89 A. 12 (Heselton v. Campion) 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

Heselton v. Campion, 89 A. 12, 111 Me. 583, 1913 Me. LEXIS 139 (Me. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

The action is debt on judgment. The defendant is a non-resident, and the alleged trustee is a resident of Kennebec County and holds the office of Clerk of Courts.

The case was heard by the Judge of the Superior Court, who was asked by the defendant to make a finding that the action could not be maintained on the ground that the capacity in which the alleged trustee held the money was that of a public officer; and that, therefore, there was no legal attachment of goods and estate of the defendant in this State, and consequently no jurisdiction over the defendant, he being a non-resident. The Judge declined to so rule, but took jurisdiction of the cause, giving judgment for the plaintiff and charging the trustee. To such rulings and refusal to rule, the defendant took exceptions; and thus the matter is presented to this court.

An examination of the evidence reported shows the contention of the defendant to be untenable, because the trustee was neither holding the funds as a public officer nor as a part of his official duty. Exceptions overruled.

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

The action is debt on judgment. The defendant is a non-resident, and the alleged trustee is a resident of Kennebec County and holds the office of Clerk of Courts.

The case was heard by the Judge of the Superior Court, who was asked by the defendant to make a finding that the action could not be maintained on the ground that the capacity in which the alleged trustee held the money was that of a public officer; and that, therefore, there was no legal attachment of goods and estate of the defendant in this State, and consequently no jurisdiction over the defendant, he being a non-resident. The Judge declined to so rule, but took jurisdiction of the cause, giving judgment for the plaintiff and charging the trustee. To such rulings and refusal to rule, the defendant took exceptions; and thus the matter is presented to this court.

An examination of the evidence reported shows the contention of the defendant to be untenable, because the trustee was neither holding the funds as a public officer nor as a part of his official duty. Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A. 12, 111 Me. 583, 1913 Me. LEXIS 139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heselton-v-campion-me-1913.