Hill v. School District No. 2
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Exceptions from the Court of Common Pleas, Redington J. presiding. This was an action of assumpsit on a written contract, dated Sept. 5, 1835, entered into between the plaintiff and a committee of the district, who were inhabitants thereof, by which the plaintiff undertook to build a school-house for the defendants in a particular manner therein specified, to be completed by November 1, 1835. It was admitted, that the committee were duly chosen and authorized to make said…
Read the full summary
Exceptions from the Court of Common Pleas, Redington J. presiding. This was an action of assumpsit on a written contract, dated Sept. 5, 1835, entered into between the plaintiff and a committee of the district, who were inhabitants thereof, by which the plaintiff undertook to build a school-house for the defendants in a particular manner therein specified, to be completed by November 1, 1835. It was admitted, that the committee were duly chosen and authorized to make said contract and superintend the building. The plaintiff introduced many witnesses whose testimony tended to prove that the…
1Opinion of the Court
*322The opinion of the court was drawn up by
Shepley J.
It is insisted in the argument for the plaintiff, that the verdict ought to be set aside and a new trial granted: —■
1. Because the committee chosen to build the house were admitted as witnesses for the defendants. The objection to them is not, that they were interested as members of the district, for that is removed by the provisions of the statute c. 87 ; but it is, that being agents of the district, if they have not acted faithfully, they are liable to the district and therefore interested. But a recovery in this case would not imply any…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Su Lee v. PeckNevada Supreme Court · 1925
- Rockland Poultry Co. v. AndersonSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1952
- Tascott v. RosenthalAppellate Court of Illinois · 1882