Lewiston Buick Co. v. Nelke

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Lewiston Buick Co. v. Nelke

104 A. 627, 117 Me. 568, 1918 Me. LEXIS 92

DecidedSeptember 23, 1918

StatusPublished

This text of 104 A. 627 (Lewiston Buick Co. v. Nelke) 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

Lewiston Buick Co. v. Nelke, 104 A. 627, 117 Me. 568, 1918 Me. LEXIS 92 (Me. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

This is an action for money had and received to recover the amount paid the defendant for an automobile alleged to have been stolen property. The case was tried and a verdict rendered in favor of the plaintiff. It is unnecessary to recite the facts, as the decision of the case depends upon precisely the same legal principle, as was involved in Royal Insurance Company v. Nelke, 117 Maine, 366. The two cases were tried at the same term of court and the exceptions were filed and allowed at the same time. A motion was filed to dismiss the exceptions for the same reasons stated in the latter case. While we think the verdict was warranted by the evidence, yet, for the reasons stated in Royal Insurance Company v. Nelke, the entry must be: Exceptions dismissed. Ralph W. Crockett, for plaintiff. McGillicuddy & Morey, for defendant. Pulsifer & Ludden, for trustee.

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

This is an action for money had and received to recover the amount paid the defendant for an automobile alleged to have been stolen property. The case was tried and a verdict rendered in favor of the plaintiff. It is unnecessary to recite the facts, as the decision of the case depends upon precisely the same legal principle, as was involved in Royal Insurance Company v. Nelke, 117 Maine, 366. The two cases were tried at the same term of court and the exceptions were filed and allowed at the same time. A motion was filed to dismiss the exceptions for the same reasons stated in the latter case. While we think the verdict was warranted by the evidence, yet, for the reasons stated in Royal Insurance Company v. Nelke, the entry must be: Exceptions dismissed. Ralph W. Crockett, for plaintiff. McGillicuddy & Morey, for defendant. Pulsifer & Ludden, for trustee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 A. 627, 117 Me. 568, 1918 Me. LEXIS 92, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewiston-buick-co-v-nelke-me-1918.