Lewiston Steam Mill Co. v. Androscoggin Water Power Co.
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On exceptions. The opinion states the case. The verdict was for the plaintiff for the sum of nine hundred and sixty-three dollars and four cents. It is not open to one who uses an expert to bolster up his opinions by giving Ms reasons. On cross-examination they may be inquired into or not as the cross-examiner chooses. The expert’s opinion simply is all that he is permitted to give on direct examination. cited: Sexton v. Bridgewater, 116 Mass. 200.
1Opinion of the CourtVirgin, J.
This is an action on the case brought under the provisions of E. S., c. 42, § 6, to recover a reasonable compensation for driving, in the,spring of 1884, from Gilead and other landings below, on the Androscoggin river, to Canton and Lewiston, a certain quantity of the defendant’s logs with which those of the plaintiff became so intermixed that they could not be conveniently separated for the purpose of being floated to the place of manufacture.
The plaintiff made two drives, denominated by the witnesses as "head drive” and "rear drive,” the former having started April 19, and reached Canton…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Sexton v. Inhabitants of North BridgewaterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874
- Hawkins v. City of Fall RiverMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1875
3Cited by6 opinions
- State v. CatellierWyoming Supreme Court · 1947
- State v. RynoSupreme Court of Kansas · 1904
- People v. . BarberNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
- Hansen-Rynning v. Oregon-Washington Railroad & NavigationOregon Supreme Court · 1922
- Bulger v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1915
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.