Smith v. Davis

38 Me. 459
CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine
DecidedJuly 1, 1853
StatusPublished

This text of 38 Me. 459 (Smith v. Davis) 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. Davis, 38 Me. 459 (Me. 1853).

Opinion

Shepley, C. J.

— The statute requires, that petitions for review should be indorsed, c. 114 § 16. The eighteenth rule of the court requires that pleas in abatement should be filed within two days after entry of the action. Motions for causes presentable by plea in abatement, have been considered as subject to the same rule, the Court having regard to the substance rather than the form,, in which the objection is presented. Clapp v. Balch, 3 Greenl. 216; Trafton v. Rogers, 13 Maine, 315; Maine Bank v. Hervey, 21 Maine, 38.

Such a motion would seem to be considered in Massachusetts as made in season, if made during the first term. Carpenter v. Aldrich, 3 Met. 58. It does not appear that any rule of that court required that it should be made at an earlier time.

"When a petition for review is entered before service, the respondent must be entitled to the same opportunity after he is required to appear, as he would have in case of a precept served before entry,'but he cannot be entitled to.greater indulgence. There is a difference between the present and the former statute respecting the time when an indorsement should be made; but that affords no cause for a change or disregard of the rule respecting the time when advantage should be taken of the omission. The party is considered [461]*461as having waived the privilege secured to him by the statute. Exceptions overruled.

Tenney, Wells, Howard and Rice, J. J., concurred.

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

Related

Hartley v. Hartley
60 Ky. 56 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1860)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
38 Me. 459, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-davis-me-1853.