McArthur v. Starrett
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
The facts in the ease were agreed by the parties. This is a writ of error to reverse a judgment for costs recovered by defendant in error against the plaintiffs, at the March term of the court, 1856, and taxed by the clerk. Plea is “ in nullo esi erratum.”
Read the full summary
The facts in the ease were agreed by the parties. This is a writ of error to reverse a judgment for costs recovered by defendant in error against the plaintiffs, at the March term of the court, 1856, and taxed by the clerk. Plea is “ in nullo esi erratum.” The defendant in error formerly resided in Augusta, Maine, but had removed to Richmond, Virginia, and was temporarily in said Augusta at the time of the service of the original writ upon him, and traveled from said Richmond to Augusta for the purpose of attending the trial, as stated in his certificate on file. The witness Hammington,…
1Opinion of the CourtMay, J.
The error for which a judgment may be reversed, by writ of error, may exist, either in the foundation, proceedings, judgment or execution of the suit. Howe’s Prac., book 2, chap. 13, sec. 8, and the cases there cited. It may be an error in law or in fact. If it be the former, it *346must always appear upon the record; if the latter, it may be shown by proof of some fact, not apparent upon the record, but affecting its validity, or the regularity of the proceeding itself; such as the death or insanity of one of the parties at the commencement of the suit; or the appearance of an infant in a…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- White v. PalmerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1808
- Stores v. WhiteMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1811
- Campbell v. PattersonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1835
- Smith v. LongCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1859
- Whitwell v. AtkinsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1810