Parow v. Sherburne

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Parow v. Sherburne

125 A. 145, 124 Me. 426, 1924 Me. LEXIS 55

DecidedJune 26, 1924

StatusPublished

This text of 125 A. 145 (Parow v. Sherburne) 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

Parow v. Sherburne, 125 A. 145, 124 Me. 426, 1924 Me. LEXIS 55 (Me. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

This is an action to recover damages caused by flow of surface water diverted by means of a ditch upon land of the plaintiffs. The order of the presiding Justice in the court below was ‘ ‘Plaintiffs non-suit on the stipulation on the part of the defendant that judgment shall be rendered by the Law Court for the- plaintiffs for the sum of Twenty-five dollars and costs if, for any reason, the Law Court shall over-rule the order of non-suit.” - Exception to this order was taken by plaintiffs.

A majority of the members of the court are of opinion that a question of fact, namely, the extent and nature of the ditch, as affecting the rights and liability of the parties, was one which should have been submitted to the -jury; hence the order of nón-suit was error. Exception sustained. Judgment for plaintiffs in accordance with the stipulation.

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

This is an action to recover damages caused by flow of surface water diverted by means of a ditch upon land of the plaintiffs. The order of the presiding Justice in the court below was ‘ ‘Plaintiffs non-suit on the stipulation on the part of the defendant that judgment shall be rendered by the Law Court for the- plaintiffs for the sum of Twenty-five dollars and costs if, for any reason, the Law Court shall over-rule the order of non-suit.” - Exception to this order was taken by plaintiffs.

A majority of the members of the court are of opinion that a question of fact, namely, the extent and nature of the ditch, as affecting the rights and liability of the parties, was one which should have been submitted to the -jury; hence the order of nón-suit was error. Exception sustained. Judgment for plaintiffs in accordance with the stipulation.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 A. 145, 124 Me. 426, 1924 Me. LEXIS 55, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parow-v-sherburne-me-1924.