Thorndike v. Inhabitants of Camden
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Exceptions, on facts agreed. Action of assumpsit,, on account annexed. The case was referred to the court, the right to except being reserved; and it ruled that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment for three hundred and twenty-seven dollars with interest from January 1,1886. Defendants excepted to the ruling. The agreed statement of facts is as follows:— “This is an action for the recovery of an amount voted by the town to be paid to the plaintiff and interest on same.
Read the full summary
Exceptions, on facts agreed. Action of assumpsit,, on account annexed. The case was referred to the court, the right to except being reserved; and it ruled that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment for three hundred and twenty-seven dollars with interest from January 1,1886. Defendants excepted to the ruling. The agreed statement of facts is as follows:— “This is an action for the recovery of an amount voted by the town to be paid to the plaintiff and interest on same. It is agreed that plaintiff was collector of taxes of said town for the year 1873, and that among the various taxes…
1Opinion of the CourtEmery, J.
This case is presented by the defendants’ exceptions to the ruling of the presiding justice awarding judgment for plaintiff on an agreed statement of facts. In submitting a case upon an agreed statement, the plaintiff has the burden of stating all the facts necessary for the maintenance of his action. He must not depend on inferences. Omissions will be construed against him.
In this case, we must assume that the plaintiff was the duly elected and qualified collector of taxes in the defendant town for the year 1873; — that he had a legal and sufficient warrant to collect a tax of 1316, legally…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Meriwether v. GarrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Stetson v. KemptonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1816
- Coolidge v. Inhabitants of BrooklineMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874
- Drew v. DavisSupreme Court of Vermont · 1838
- Greenough v. Inhabitants of WakefieldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1879
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Tumulty v. District of ColumbiaCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1939
- McClelland v. State ex rel. SpeerIndiana Supreme Court · 1894
- Stevenson v. HenkleSupreme Court of Virginia · 1902
- Inhabitants of Milo v. Milo Water Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1932
- Dolloff v. GardinerSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1952
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.