Sawyer v. Sawyer
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
'■On EXCEPTIONS. Assumpsit on account annexed, dated November 28, 1876, ■for " eleven years’ labor, one hundred and twenty-five dollars per _year, thirteen'hundred and seventy-five dollars.” The writ was ■dated November 28, 1876. At the February term of court, 1880, • James P. Farrell, a subsequent attaching creditor, obtained leave -of the court to defend this action. The defendant failing to plead, Farrell pleaded the general issue and statute of limitations.
Read the full summary
'■On EXCEPTIONS. Assumpsit on account annexed, dated November 28, 1876, ■for " eleven years’ labor, one hundred and twenty-five dollars per _year, thirteen'hundred and seventy-five dollars.” The writ was ■dated November 28, 1876. At the February term of court, 1880, • James P. Farrell, a subsequent attaching creditor, obtained leave -of the court to defend this action. The defendant failing to plead, Farrell pleaded the general issue and statute of limitations. The presiding justice instructed the jury that it was not competent for Farrell, as subsequent attaching creditor, to set up the…
1Opinion of the CourtWalton, J.
When property has been attached, a plaintiff who has caused it to be attached in a subsequent suit, may, by ‘himself or his attorney, petition the court for leave to defend the prior suit, and set forth therein the facts, as he believes them to be, under oath; and the court may grant or refuse such leave. R. S., c. 82, § 39.
In this suit, a subsequent attaching creditor obtained leave of the court to defend it; and the only question is whether it ivas ■competent for him to set up the statute of limitations to a part «f the plaintiff’s claim as one of the grounds of his defense.
We think it was.…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Mason v. TaftSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1901