Darling v. Simpson
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
ExceptioNS from the Court of Common Pleas, Perham J. presiding. The action was assumpsit, brought in the name of George W. Darling, and Joshua Wilkinson, as surviving members of a fish committee, consisting of three, chosen by the town of Sullivan in pursuance of the statute of February 28, 1833, entitled, “An act to prevent the destruction of fish in the town of Sullivan,” for money jointly expended, against the defendants as owners of the mill referred to in the statute.
Read the full summary
ExceptioNS from the Court of Common Pleas, Perham J. presiding. The action was assumpsit, brought in the name of George W. Darling, and Joshua Wilkinson, as surviving members of a fish committee, consisting of three, chosen by the town of Sullivan in pursuance of the statute of February 28, 1833, entitled, “An act to prevent the destruction of fish in the town of Sullivan,” for money jointly expended, against the defendants as owners of the mill referred to in the statute. Wilkinson appeared by his counsel, and filed a motion, in which lie set forth that he had no claim against the…
1Opinion of the Court
After a continuance, the Opinion of the Court was drawn Up by
Weston C. J.
From the case as presented, we are to understand, that the fish committee, for the town of Sullivan, incurred expense, in causing to be kept open a sufficient sluice way for the passage of fish, with which the defendants were liable to be charged, in an action of assumpsit, to be brought by the committee. After money had been expended by their joint order and procurement, it would be inequitable to permit one of them, by a separate adjustment, to deprive his colleague of all remedy, for what he has a right to claim.…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Williams v. Pacific Surety Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1912