Stevens v. Haskell

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Stevens v. Haskell

72 Me. 244, 1881 Me. LEXIS 73

DecidedMay 23, 1881

StatusPublished

This text of 72 Me. 244 (Stevens v. Haskell) 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

Stevens v. Haskell, 72 Me. 244, 1881 Me. LEXIS 73 (Me. 1881).

Pincite

Opinion

Walton, J.

No action against an executor or administrator, on a claim against tbe estate, can be maintained, unless such claim is first presented in writing, as required by tbe act of 1872, c. 85, § 12. Like every other fact essential to tbe maintenance of tbe suit, tbe notice, or presentation in writing, must be first averred in tbe declaration, and then proved at the trial. An averment of this fact is as essential as tbe averment of any other fact necessary to maintain tbe action. A declaration against an executor or an administrator upon such a claim, without such an averment, is defective; and defective, not in form merely, but in substance; for tbe averment is one that must be proved as well as made. It is therefore a defect that may be taken advantage of upon general demurrer. Tbe declaration in'this case is, in this particular, defective. Eaton v. Buswell, 69 Maine, 552.

Exceptions sustained. Eeclaration adjudged bad.

Appleton, C.' J., Danporth, Virgin, Peters and Libbey, JJ., concurred.

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

Walton, J.

No action against an executor or administrator, on a claim against tbe estate, can be maintained, unless such claim is first presented in writing, as required by tbe act of 1872, c. 85, § 12. Like every other fact essential to tbe maintenance of tbe suit, tbe notice, or presentation in writing, must be first averred in tbe declaration, and then proved at the trial. An averment of this fact is as essential as tbe averment of any other fact necessary to maintain tbe action. A declaration against an executor or an administrator upon such a claim, without such an averment, is defective; and defective, not in form merely, but in substance; for tbe averment is one that must be proved as well as made. It is therefore a defect that may be taken advantage of upon general demurrer. Tbe declaration in'this case is, in this particular, defective. Eaton v. Buswell, 69 Maine, 552.

Exceptions sustained. Eeclaration adjudged bad.

Appleton, C.' J., Danporth, Virgin, Peters and Libbey, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 Me. 244, 1881 Me. LEXIS 73, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stevens-v-haskell-me-1881.