Madden v. Tucker
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Motion for a new trial, and exceptions to the ruling of May. J. This was a writ of entry. After verdict and before judgment, the defendant, against whom the verdict was rendered, moved to set it aside and for a new trial, because,— 1. The verdict was against the weight of evidence and the instructions of the Court;— 2. The verdict for damages was excessive, and not authorized by any evidence in the case.
Read the full summary
Motion for a new trial, and exceptions to the ruling of May. J. This was a writ of entry. After verdict and before judgment, the defendant, against whom the verdict was rendered, moved to set it aside and for a new trial, because,— 1. The verdict was against the weight of evidence and the instructions of the Court;— 2. The verdict for damages was excessive, and not authorized by any evidence in the case. Demandant claimed the north half part of lot No. 62. The general issue was pleaded and joined, and, by leave of Court, upon terms, defendant, in a brief statement, disclaimed all that part of…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Cutting, J.
On November 24, 1840, Tucker conveyed to Madden, “a certain lot, piece or parcel of land situate in said Cherryfield, and containing fifty acres, and bounded on the east by the Narraguagus river, and on the north by the farm on which Stephen O. Madden now lives. The land which is hereby conveyed is the north part of the McKay farm, (so called.)”
It appears that, at the time of the conveyance, Tucker was the owner of two lots; viz., a front lot, No. 62, bounded on the east by the Narraguagus river, and another lot, No. 80, in *375the rear of the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Tasker v. CilleySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1880