Hooper v. Taylor
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
ON Exceptions from Nisi Prius, Shepley, C. J., presiding. Assumpsit. The case was referred. The referee reported, that plaintiff ought to recover eightv-two dollars in Ml of all demands, unless the charges contained in the paper annexed to his report, which was produced by plaintiff, as containing original entries, should be considered with the suppletory oath of plaintiff’, proper and legal evidence as original entries in support of said charges, amounting, exclusive of the…
Read the full summary
ON Exceptions from Nisi Prius, Shepley, C. J., presiding. Assumpsit. The case was referred. The referee reported, that plaintiff ought to recover eightv-two dollars in Ml of all demands, unless the charges contained in the paper annexed to his report, which was produced by plaintiff, as containing original entries, should be considered with the suppletory oath of plaintiff’, proper and legal evidence as original entries in support of said charges, amounting, exclusive of the first charge, to the sum of one hundred and three dollars and twenty cents. If the Court should be of opinion that the…
1Opinion of the CourtRice, J.
— This case comes before us on exceptions to the ruling of the Judge, in accepting a report of a referee. Tho referee stated in his report, that the plaintiff ought to recover against the defendant, eighty-two dollars, in full of all *227demands, unless tlie charges contained in the paper annexed to his report, which was produced by the plaintiff, as containing original entries, should be considered, with the sup-pletory oath of the plaintiff, proper and legal evidence, as original entries in support of said charges, amounting, exclusive of the first charge of thirty-six dollars, to the sum of…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Shirley v. Southern Ry. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1916
- Deitz v. McVeyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1916
- Campbell v. RiceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1913