Hodgdon v. Chase

32 Me. 169
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine·Decided July 1, 1850·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Shepley, C. J.,

orally.—This is an action of singular type. It has been argued by the plaintiffs’ counsel with much ingenuity and force. But we think the reasoning cannot prevail. To maintain such an action would render the statute inoperative, except to change the form of actions from assumpsit to case or tort. Demurrer held good.

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

Hodgdon v. Chase, 32 Me. 169 (Me. 1850).

32 Me. 169 (Hodgdon v. Chase) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Curtiss Aeroplane Co.
147 F.2d 639 (Second Circuit, 1945)
Gorowitz v. Blumenstein
184 Misc. 111 (New York Supreme Court, 1944)