Kendrick v. Crowell
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On Exceptions, Rice, J., presiding. Assumpsit on a note of hand for $174,50, dated March 29, 1850. The general issue was pleaded. Crowell, one of the defendants, was arrested and tried on twenty-one warrants, before a magistrate, for violations of “an Act to restrict the sale of intoxicating drinks,” approved August 16, 1846, and was convicted and ordered to pay a fine and the costs on each complaint. From these judgments an appeal was entered and allowed.
Read the full summary
On Exceptions, Rice, J., presiding. Assumpsit on a note of hand for $174,50, dated March 29, 1850. The general issue was pleaded. Crowell, one of the defendants, was arrested and tried on twenty-one warrants, before a magistrate, for violations of “an Act to restrict the sale of intoxicating drinks,” approved August 16, 1846, and was convicted and ordered to pay a fine and the costs on each complaint. From these judgments an appeal was entered and allowed. Afterwards, the complainants and one of the selectmen of Gardiner, and said Crowell, (the offences having been committed in Gardiner,) met…
1Opinion of the CourtCutting, J.
— Assuming the signatures to the note to have been genuine, the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case, and is entitled to recover, unless the defendants have succeeded in establishing a legal defence.
It appears, that the note was made payable to the plaintiff in his capacity as treasurer of the town of Gardiner for its proportion of certain forfeitures either incurred or anticipated under the statute of 1846, c. 205, § 6; in which settlement, one of the selectmen assumed to act for the town, and the principal question is, whether such note is void for want of legal consideration.
In…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Cummings v. City of HuntsvilleSupreme Court of Alabama · 1926
- Kelley v. Tillamook CountyOregon Supreme Court · 1923