Maine Reports; Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine Volume 16

Maine Reports; Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine Volume 16

List price: US$9.02

Currently unavailable

Add to wishlist

AbeBooks may have this title (opens in new window).

Try AbeBooks


This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1841 edition. Excerpt: was cured by the appearance of the defendants generally, for two terms, without objection. But if there was originally a defect in the writ, it was amendable under the stat. 1821, c. 59, 16. Livermore v. Boswell, 4 Mass. R. 437; Green v. Lowell, 3 Greenl. 373; Wyman v. Dorr, 3 Greenl. 183; McLellan v. Crofton, 6 Greenl. 307; Sawyer v. Baker, 3 Greenl. 29; Buck v. Hmdy, 6 Greenl. 162. But the granting of this amendment was an act of discretion of the Judge for which exceptions do not lie. Clapp v. Balch, 3 Greenl. 216. The opinion of the Court was drawn up by WESTON C. J.---The writ in question, as it stood before it was amended, was dated the twenty-fifth day of November, 1836, and was made returnable to the Court of Common Pleas, next to be holden at Bangor, within and for the county of Penobscot. As that court was, by a general law of the State, to be holden on the first Tuesday of January, the retum day must have been understood by the officer who served the writ, and by the defendants. This is sufficiently indicated by the appearance of the latter, and the regular return of the writ. In most of the cases, cited for the defendants, the writ was made returnable on a wrong day. As in Wood v. Hill, 5 N. H. Rep. 229, on the first Tuesday of August, instead of the third. In Bunn v. Thomas, 8; al. 2 Johns. 190, a writ, datedallloy twelfth, was made returnable on the seventeenth of Zllay next, passing by one or two intermediate terms. So in Burk v. Barnard, 4 Jolms. R. 308, the writ being dated 1808, instead of 1809, the return day was apparently passed, when it was served. In Bell v. Austin, 13 Pick. 90, the writ was made retumable the first Tu'esday of April, whereas the court was holden on the fifth Tuesday of lllarch. In more

Product details

  • Paperback | 186 pages
  • 189 x 246 x 10mm | 340g
  • United States
  • English
  • black & white illustrations
  • 1236927656
  • 9781236927651