Maine Mutual Marine Insurance v. Pickering
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On report. Assumpsit. The defendant signed the agreement head-noted in the case of the same plaintiffs against Hodgkins, ante p. 109, and also the same note on which this action is brought. After the evidence was out, the case was reported to the full court for such judgment as the legal rights of the parties require. The facts appear in the opinion.
Read the full summary
On report. Assumpsit. The defendant signed the agreement head-noted in the case of the same plaintiffs against Hodgkins, ante p. 109, and also the same note on which this action is brought. After the evidence was out, the case was reported to the full court for such judgment as the legal rights of the parties require. The facts appear in the opinion. The note in suit is of same character as the one in Howard v. Palmer, 64 Maine, 86. The only difference in the cases is, that the trustees voted to surrender Pickering’s note to him, but, rescinded the vote before its surrender. This does not…
1Opinion of the CourtBarrows, J.
The defendant was one of the signers of the original agreement, which resulted in the formation of the plaintiff corporation ; he was one of the original trustees named in the charter, and one of the directors, until the close of the year 1871.
lie gave the note in suit, and took out an open policy in January, 1871, in place of a similar note and policy made and issued in the previous year, under § 9, of the charter, “for the better security of those concerned.” The liability thereby incurred has been fully considered by this court, and discussed at large in Howard v. Palmer, 64 Maine, 86 ;…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Akers v. HiteSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1880