Pike v. Lowell
32 Me. 245
Opinion
orally.—The distinction drawn by the plaintiff’s counsel cannot be sustained. There is nothing in the statute, from which it can be inferred. Limitation laws are arbitrary, but they are binding.
Judgment for defendant.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Pike v. Lowell, 32 Me. 245 (Me. 1850).
32 Me. 245 (Pike v. Lowell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Duff v. First Nat. Bank of Wellsville
13 F. 65 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania, 1882)
Moses v. St. Paul
67 Ala. 168 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1880)
Walker v. Towner
29 F. Cas. 57 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Missouri, 1877)