Talbot v. Locke

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Talbot v. Locke

98 A. 939, 115 Me. 554, 1916 Me. LEXIS 81

DecidedNovember 1, 1916

StatusPublished

This text of 98 A. 939 (Talbot v. Locke) 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

Talbot v. Locke, 98 A. 939, 115 Me. 554, 1916 Me. LEXIS 81 (Me. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Action in assumpsit on account annexed consisting of a number of items, but the only controversy is over two charges, viz., a block of cylinders [555]*555for an automobile and an express charge thereon. Verdict upon these items, as well as the others, being in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant asks that the judgment of the jury be set aside. Neither counsel presented any argument to sustain his contentions. The testimony of the plaintiff stands alone on one side, and that of the defendant and his wife on the other. One side flatly contradicts the other. The issues were solely issues of fact. The jury saw the witnesses and heard them testify and we are not convinced from the printed record that the finding of the jury is so clearly wrong as to warrant us in setting that finding aside. Motion for new trial overruled.

C. L. Beedy, for plaintiff. L. F. Crockett, and C. E. Sawyer, for defendant.

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

Action in assumpsit on account annexed consisting of a number of items, but the only controversy is over two charges, viz., a block of cylinders [555]*555for an automobile and an express charge thereon. Verdict upon these items, as well as the others, being in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant asks that the judgment of the jury be set aside. Neither counsel presented any argument to sustain his contentions. The testimony of the plaintiff stands alone on one side, and that of the defendant and his wife on the other. One side flatly contradicts the other. The issues were solely issues of fact. The jury saw the witnesses and heard them testify and we are not convinced from the printed record that the finding of the jury is so clearly wrong as to warrant us in setting that finding aside. Motion for new trial overruled.

C. L. Beedy, for plaintiff. L. F. Crockett, and C. E. Sawyer, for defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 A. 939, 115 Me. 554, 1916 Me. LEXIS 81, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/talbot-v-locke-me-1916.