Raymond v. E. I. duPont deNemours Co.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Raymond v. E. I. duPont deNemours Co.

125 A. 925, 124 Me. 427, 1924 Me. LEXIS 70

DecidedJuly 11, 1924

StatusPublished

This text of 125 A. 925 (Raymond v. E. I. duPont deNemours Co.) 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

Raymond v. E. I. duPont deNemours Co., 125 A. 925, 124 Me. 427, 1924 Me. LEXIS 70 (Me. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Action for breach of covenant of a pulpwood stumpage contract. The main issue of fact before the jury was whether the defendant had cleared the lots as required by the contract. The jury found that it had not and assessed damages in the sum of $1,661.01.

McLean, Fogg & Southard, for plaintiff. Bradley, Linnell & Jones, for defendant.

The evidence was very contradictory and the result depended upon the effect upon the minds of the jury of the witnesses on either side, and it was a case peculiarly adapted to their judgment and experience. Their intelligence is shown by their comprehension of and answers to the four special findings submitted to them. We see no occasion to disturb their finding on the main question.

The damages seem somewhat large, but not so excessive as to require the court to diminish them on the evidence presented.

The fourth special finding of the jury renders consideration of the exception unnecessary. Motion and exception overruled.

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

Action for breach of covenant of a pulpwood stumpage contract. The main issue of fact before the jury was whether the defendant had cleared the lots as required by the contract. The jury found that it had not and assessed damages in the sum of $1,661.01.

McLean, Fogg & Southard, for plaintiff. Bradley, Linnell & Jones, for defendant.

The evidence was very contradictory and the result depended upon the effect upon the minds of the jury of the witnesses on either side, and it was a case peculiarly adapted to their judgment and experience. Their intelligence is shown by their comprehension of and answers to the four special findings submitted to them. We see no occasion to disturb their finding on the main question.

The damages seem somewhat large, but not so excessive as to require the court to diminish them on the evidence presented.

The fourth special finding of the jury renders consideration of the exception unnecessary. Motion and exception overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 A. 925, 124 Me. 427, 1924 Me. LEXIS 70, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raymond-v-e-i-dupont-denemours-co-me-1924.