Hill v. McNichol
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On exceptions, and motion to set aside the verdict. Assumpsit for money had and received against the administrator of the insolvent estate of Monroe Hill, brought under the statute, upon appeal from the allowance of the claim by the commissioners of insolvency. The material facts are stated in the opinion.
Read the full summary
On exceptions, and motion to set aside the verdict. Assumpsit for money had and received against the administrator of the insolvent estate of Monroe Hill, brought under the statute, upon appeal from the allowance of the claim by the commissioners of insolvency. The material facts are stated in the opinion. The courts uniformly regard this evidence of possession of the deed, with the presumption which it raises of a proper delivery, as prima facie sufficient, until overcome by counter proof. Butriclc v. Tilton, 141 Mass. 95 ; Patterson v. Snell, 67 Maine, 561; Sweetser v. Lowell, 33 Maine, 447…
1Opinion of the CourtPeters, C. J.
The primary question of this case is, whether a deed, under which the plaintiff claims important interests, was ever delivered to her. The evidence on the point is scarcely at all contradictory, and strongly supports the verdict of the jury against delivery. A brief statement of the facts, excluding voluminous details which relate only to the question of damages, will render an elucidation of the case easy.
The central historical figure seen in the facts is Abner Hill, who, for more than a half century, resided either in this state or New Brunswick, engaged in the lumbering business on the St.…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Hooper v. BailSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1935
- Bartemeier v. Central National Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Iowa · 1916
- Bouvier-Iaeger Coal Land Co. v. SypherU.S. Circuit Court for the District of West Virginia · 1910
- Howth v. TaliaferroCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1926
- Stearns v. ThompsonSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1936