Smith v. Campbell

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Smith v. Campbell

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

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine·Decided July 8, 1916·Published

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.

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

Pincite

98 A. 75 (Smith v. Campbell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.