Bourisk v. Mohican Co.
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
1Opinion of the CourtStubgis, J.
These actions for negligence, by agreement of the parties, were referred under rule of court with the right of exceptions to rulings of law reserved. The Referees found for the defendant. At the next term, the plaintiffs moved that the Referees’ report be recommitted for further hearing upon the grounds of newly-discovered evidence. The motions were granted and exceptions reserved.
The plaintiffs’ motions to recommit allege that since the former hearing an unnamed witness, now resident in another jurisdiction, has been discovered who saw the accident out of which these actions arise and can…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Charlesworth v. American Express Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1918
- Fournier v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1929
- Kelley v. ThibodeauSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1921
- Chasse v. SoucierSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1919
- Nathan M. Rodman Co. v. KostisSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1921
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- State v. HumeSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1951
- Strater v. StraterSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1963
- State v. WardwellSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1962
- Flood v. EarleSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1950
- American Oil Co. v. CarlisleSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1949
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.