Littlefield v. Smith
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Exceptions by the plaintiffs from the Court of Common Pleas, Redington J. presiding. The following is a copy of the survey bill referred to in the disclosure. “ Moscow, April 1,1836. Surveyed for Edward S. Moulton Of Co. of Saco, 103.342 feet of timber, hauled by E. Ford and J. Smith of Brighton, at 10s. 6d. per thousand — payment as follows — one third in June next, one third in September next, and one third in December next. Wadsworth Boulter, Surveyor.”
Read the full summary
Exceptions by the plaintiffs from the Court of Common Pleas, Redington J. presiding. The following is a copy of the survey bill referred to in the disclosure. “ Moscow, April 1,1836. Surveyed for Edward S. Moulton Of Co. of Saco, 103.342 feet of timber, hauled by E. Ford and J. Smith of Brighton, at 10s. 6d. per thousand — payment as follows — one third in June next, one third in September next, and one third in December next. Wadsworth Boulter, Surveyor.” On the back was written without date. “We, the subscribers, indorse this billl, holden for debt and costs, and waive demand and notice. E.…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was drawn up by
Sheplet J.
The statement of the principal, Smith, is by the agreement of the parties received, and it makes a part of the case. He says, that the debt due to him was agreed to be assigned to Jewett in part payment of a debt, and that the survey bill was delivered to him before the service of the writ. And that a written transfer was made on the back of the bill after the service of the writ, which was exhibited to the trustee, and made a part of his disclosure. This bill appears to have been the regular evidence of the debt due to Smith, for it not only…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Dorestan v. KriegWisconsin Supreme Court · 1886
- Johnson v. HibbardUtah Supreme Court · 1904