Wilson v. Bucknam
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
ON RKPORT. The case is stated in the opinion. The officer’s return in this case is sufficient to show that the requirements of the statutes were substantially complied with.
Read the full summary
ON RKPORT. The case is stated in the opinion. The officer’s return in this case is sufficient to show that the requirements of the statutes were substantially complied with. In all or most of the cases cited by defendant’s counsel the defects were much more gross than those alleged in this case, e. g.: Crafts v. Blliotsville, 47 Maine, 141; Smith v. Dow, 51 Maine, 21; Boynton v. Grant, 52 Maine, 229; Pratt v. Skolfield, 45 Maine, 386. But all the alleged defects are amendable and the officer asks leave to amend according to the facts. Ilia petition should be granted. Glidden v. Philbriek, 56…
1Opinion of the CourtAppleton, C. J.
Tbis is a real action in wbicb tbe plaintiff claims title by deed as a purchaser of a certain equity of redemption of George A. Bucknam sold on execution against him.
Tbe officer in his return states that on tbe 16th of November, 1875, be "gave to tbe said George A. Bucknam in band a notice in writing that the said right in equity would be sold by public auction, on tbe 8th day of January, A. D., Í876, at one o’clock in afternoon, at tbe post office, in Machias, in said county, and on tbe same day I also posted a like notice, in tbe town of Addison, on tbe school bouse, a public place in said…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Williams v. AmoryMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1817
- Wellington v. GaleMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1816
- Sanborn v. ChamberlinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
3Cited by1 opinion
- Roach v. City of EugeneOregon Supreme Court · 1893