Inhabitants of New Portland v. Inhabitants of Kingfield
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On Exceptions. Assumpsit for supplies furnished John Stevens and wife, (alleged paupers,) from Dec. 8, 1864, to Feb. 14, 1866, date of the writ. Specifications of defence denied each allegation in the writ in detail. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion. 1. Plaintiffs should have been required to prove the election and qualification of their overseers by the record, which was in their possession.
Read the full summary
On Exceptions. Assumpsit for supplies furnished John Stevens and wife, (alleged paupers,) from Dec. 8, 1864, to Feb. 14, 1866, date of the writ. Specifications of defence denied each allegation in the writ in detail. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion. 1. Plaintiffs should have been required to prove the election and qualification of their overseers by the record, which was in their possession. State v. Williams, 25 Maine, 561; Christ Church v. Woodward, 26 Maine, 172; Allen v. Archer, 49 Maine, 346; Fossett v. Bearce, 29 Maine, 523; Bearce v. Fossett, 34 Maine, 575; 2 Greenl.…
1Opinion of the CourtTapley, J.
This was an action to recover for supplies furnished to John Stevens and wife as paupers.
At the trial various objections were raised to the admissibility of evidence and exceptions were also taken to certain rulings of the presiding Judge.
I. The plaintiffs proved by parol that Alvah Thompson, John P. Hodsdon and Sullivan Williamson, were acting overseers of the-poor, in May, 1861, at the time the supplies were furnished. The defendants objected to this evidence as incompetent, and required the record proof of their election. The Court overruled the objection and admitted the evidence.
It is…
2Cited by5 opinions
- People v. . BrooksNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
- Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. v. LybrendSupreme Court of Georgia · 1896
- Cook v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1907
- Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. v. LybrendSupreme Court of Georgia · 1896
- People v. BrooksNew York Supreme Court · 1891