Trafton v. Rogers
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
This was an action of assumpsit. The writ bore date Jan. 5, 1834, and the action was entered at the June Term of the S. J. Court, and was then continued until the October Term following, when the trial was had before Emery J. At this last term the defendant moved, that the writ should be quashed, because it was issued on the Lord’s day.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit. The writ bore date Jan. 5, 1834, and the action was entered at the June Term of the S. J. Court, and was then continued until the October Term following, when the trial was had before Emery J. At this last term the defendant moved, that the writ should be quashed, because it was issued on the Lord’s day. No proof was then given on either side, whether the writ was, or was not, made on the Lod’s day, other than what appeared from an inspection of the writ, and reference to the calendar. “ But for the purpose of ascertaining the merits of the case, the trial was…
1Opinion of the Court
The action was continued nisi for advisement, and the opinion of the Court was drawn up and delivered at a subsequent term by
Emery J.
In this case the writ bears date the 5th of January, 1834, and was served the 7th day of May, 1834, returnable before the Supreme Judicial Court on the 3d Tuesday of June-, then next. The defendant appeared and the action was continued. At the October Term, 1834, the defendant moved that the writ be quashed because, he says, it was issued on the Lord’s day. The trial proceeded, leaving the defendant such benefit as he ought to have by law, in consideration of…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Parsons v. SwettSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1855
- Stephens v. St. Louis & S. F. R.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Arkansas · 1891
- Crawford v. CrawfordSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1860