Rowell v. Patterson

76 Me. 196, 1884 Me. LEXIS 34
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine·Decided May 29, 1884·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Libbey, J.

We think it clear that this action is barred by the act of 1872, c. 85. The statute contains no exception in favor of insane persons or infants. Claims held by them against the estate of a deceased person are barred by the limitation as well as those held by others. Baker v. Bean, 74 Maine, 17 ; Hall v. Bumstead, 20 Pick. 2; Van Steenwyck v. Washburn, 28 Albany Law Journal, 483.

Whether sound public policy required an exception from the limitation in favor of insane persons and infants, was a question for the determination of the legislature. It did not deem it wise to make such exception. A construction by the court making it would be judicial legislation. We. know no rule for the construction of statutes which would authorize it.

Plaintiff nonsuit.

Peters, C. J., Walton, Barrows and Daneorth, JJ.,concurred.

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

Rowell v. Patterson, 76 Me. 196, 1884 Me. LEXIS 34 (Me. 1884).

76 Me. 196 (Rowell v. Patterson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re Estate of Dudley
23 Ohio Law. Abs. 522 (Cuyahoga County Probate Court, 1936)
Barry v. Minahan
107 N.W. 488 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1906)
Winter v. Winter
77 N.W. 883 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1899)
Hibernian Banking Ass'n v. Commercial National Bank
41 N.E. 919 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1895)