Boston & Maine Railroad v. Warrior Mower Co.
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On exceptions. Bill of interpleader, which states on the twenty-first of July, 1877, Daniel M. Dunham brought an action against the plaintiff for damage sustained by the detention of thirty-three mowing-machines and a lot of parts. That action went to the law court (.Dunham v. B. & M. JR. JR. Go. 70 Maine, 164) where it was determined that it could be maintained, and it was sent back for an assessment of damages, and was pending when these proceedings were instituted.
Read the full summary
On exceptions. Bill of interpleader, which states on the twenty-first of July, 1877, Daniel M. Dunham brought an action against the plaintiff for damage sustained by the detention of thirty-three mowing-machines and a lot of parts. That action went to the law court (.Dunham v. B. & M. JR. JR. Go. 70 Maine, 164) where it was determined that it could be maintained, and it was sent back for an assessment of damages, and was pending when these proceedings were instituted. In August, 1879, the Warrior Mower Company, notified the plaintiff that the damages to be recovered in such action, belonged…
1Opinion of the CourtDanforth, J.
Whether this bill is maintainable as an interpleader is a question not now before the court. By the reference the parties have waived such objections as might have been raised to it as such, and the subsequent proceedings may *258be considered as a substitute for tbe interpleader. Atkinson v. Manks, 1 Cowen, 691. Hence the only questions arising are such as are presented by the exceptions. The rule required the referees to determine the facts and present to the court for decision such questions of law as shall arise thereon. This they have done and the proforma acceptance of their report presents…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- White v. WebbSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1842
- Wade & Co. v. HamiltonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1860
- Thompson v. PerkinsU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1823
- Kinder v. ShawMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1807
- Kelley v. MunsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1811
3Cited by6 opinions
- Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Peru-Van Zandt Implement Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1906
- Automated Donut Systems, Inc. v. Consolidated Rail Corp.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1981
- Dyer v. Great Northern Ry. Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
- Grinnell-Collins Co. v. Illinois Central RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1910
- Scammon v. Wells, Fargo & Co.California Supreme Court · 1890
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.