Israelson v. Gallant

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Israelson v. Gallant

154 A. 574, 130 Me. 213, 1931 Me. LEXIS 59

DecidedApril 28, 1931

StatusPublished

This text of 154 A. 574 (Israelson v. Gallant) 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

Israelson v. Gallant, 154 A. 574, 130 Me. 213, 1931 Me. LEXIS 59 (Me. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Dunn, J.

The writ in this case was made, with the intention of service, on January 3,1931. The signature thereon was not that of the then clerk of the court (the Superior Court in Oxford County), but of him who had been clerk for the term which ended January 1, 1931.

The question is whether this rendered the writ void in the inception, or merely voidably defective, and amendable nunc pro time. On motion to dismiss, the trial Judge took the latter view. A motion to amend was allowed. Defendant excepted.

The statutory requirement, B. S., Chap. 91, Sec. 19, that Superior Court writs shall be signed, means by an incumbent clerk. [214]*214The absence of such a signature is a matter of substance which the power of amendment can not reach. Pinkham v. Jennings, 123 Me., 343.

Exception sustained.

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

Dunn, J.

The writ in this case was made, with the intention of service, on January 3,1931. The signature thereon was not that of the then clerk of the court (the Superior Court in Oxford County), but of him who had been clerk for the term which ended January 1, 1931.

The question is whether this rendered the writ void in the inception, or merely voidably defective, and amendable nunc pro time. On motion to dismiss, the trial Judge took the latter view. A motion to amend was allowed. Defendant excepted.

The statutory requirement, B. S., Chap. 91, Sec. 19, that Superior Court writs shall be signed, means by an incumbent clerk. [214]*214The absence of such a signature is a matter of substance which the power of amendment can not reach. Pinkham v. Jennings, 123 Me., 343.

Exception sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 A. 574, 130 Me. 213, 1931 Me. LEXIS 59, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/israelson-v-gallant-me-1931.