Smith v. Campbell

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Smith v. Campbell

98 A. 75, 115 Me. 547, 1916 Me. LEXIS 24

DecidedJuly 8, 1916

StatusPublished

This text of 98 A. 75 (Smith v. Campbell) 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

Smith v. Campbell, 98 A. 75, 115 Me. 547, 1916 Me. LEXIS 24 (Me. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

The suit was to recover the price of fertilizer sold. The defence was payment. [548]*548The testimony of the parties was flatly contradictory. The jury found for the defendant. The burden now is on the plaintiff to show that the verdict is clearly wrong. The court is of opinion that the plaintiff has failed to sustain the burden. Motion for a new trial overruled.

Hersey & Barnes, for plaintiff. Fred P. Whitney, and W. R. Roix, for defendant. John B. Roberts, for trustee.

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

The suit was to recover the price of fertilizer sold. The defence was payment. [548]*548The testimony of the parties was flatly contradictory. The jury found for the defendant. The burden now is on the plaintiff to show that the verdict is clearly wrong. The court is of opinion that the plaintiff has failed to sustain the burden. Motion for a new trial overruled.

Hersey & Barnes, for plaintiff. Fred P. Whitney, and W. R. Roix, for defendant. John B. Roberts, for trustee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 A. 75, 115 Me. 547, 1916 Me. LEXIS 24, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-campbell-me-1916.