1. Alicia Rowe v. State Mutual Insurance Company Copy cite
   2025 ME 89 Supreme Judicial Court of Maine September 23, 2025 No. Wal-24-236
   Not cited

   MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions Decision: 2025 ME 89 Docket: Wal-24-236 Argued: January 8, 2025 Decided: September 23, 2025 Panel: STANFILL, C.J., and MEAD, CONNORS, LAWRENCE, and DOUGLAS, JJ. * ALICIA ROWE v. STATE MUTUAL INSURANCE

2. Chadbourne v. Hanscom Copy cite
   56 Me. 554 Supreme Judicial Court of Maine July 1, 1869
   Not cited

   Barrows, J. The account annexed to the writ in this case embraces the following items : — 1861, Oct. 8 days labor, with 4 oxen, $4. $32,00 1 Fall and blocks, 15,00 70 lbs. chain, a. 10 cents, 7,00 Guys, 20,00 1 stone 8 ft. long, 4£ ft. sq., 20,00 94,00

3. State v. Kirby Copy cite
   57 Me. 30 Supreme Judicial Court of Maine July 1, 1869
   Not cited

   Tapijsy, J. This is an indictment under the first clause of § 7 of c. 124, of the revised statutes, which provides that “if any woman is willingly delivered in secret of the issue of her body, which would be a bastard if born alive, and conceals the death thereof

4. Tyler v. Beal Copy cite
   31 Me. 336 Supreme Judicial Court of Maine July 1, 1850
   Not cited

   Howard, J. It has been decided by this court, that, under the act of 1834, chap. 101, the power of a justice of the peace, to continue a cause, triable by another justice of the peace, was limited to the return day of the writ. Spencer v. Perry, 17 Maine, 413

5. State v. Brown Copy cite
   31 Me. 522 Supreme Judicial Court of Maine July 1, 1850
   Cited by 5

   Howard, J., orally. We consider the exceptions in the first section of the Act to be sufficiently negatived in the complaint. The provisions of the twenty-fourth section have no application. The name of Mrs. Brown might not have been known to the complainant.

6. State v. Coombs Copy cite
   32 Me. 529 Supreme Judicial Court of Maine April 15, 1851
   Cited by 3

   Wells, J., orally.—A single act of selling is an offence. Presuming to be a common seller is a different and higher offence. Both of these offences have their different and appropriate punishments. In the trial for common selling, the single acts of sale are

7. Hunter v. Perry Copy cite
   33 Me. 159 Supreme Judicial Court of Maine July 1, 1851
   Not cited

   Tenney, J. — The suit is defended on the ground, that no consideration passed from the plaintiff to the defendants, for the note, which is the alleged cause of action. The directors of the Kennebec Log Driving Company, on July 2, 1845, made a contract with the

8. Dunlap v. Atkinson Copy cite
   33 Me. 265 Supreme Judicial Court of Maine July 1, 1851
   Not cited

   Wells, J., orally. — The writ of review was not entered, until the -second term after it was granted. But the statute authorizes that course under special conditions. The assignment of errors does not negative the existence of those conditions. The action may

9. Duncan v. Reed Copy cite
   39 Me. 415 Supreme Judicial Court of Maine July 1, 1855
   Cited by 1

   Rice, J. — The facts reported in this case are very meager. It is presented upon the auditor’s alternative report, without any statement of the evidence bearing upon the controverted items in the account. We are thus left to infer the facts from the general character

10. Winsor v. Clark Copy cite
    39 Me. 428 Supreme Judicial Court of Maine July 1, 1855
    Not cited

    Rich, J, — By inserting in a poor debtor’s certificate of discharge, matter not required by law to be inserted therein, such matter does not thereby become a part of the record and cannot be proved by a copy thereof. Though by inserting in such certificate facts

11. Drew v. Livermore Copy cite
    40 Me. 266 Supreme Judicial Court of Maine July 1, 1885
    Cited by 2

    Rice, J. This is assumpsit on an accountable receipt. The property described in the receipt was a vessel of which the defendant was mortgagee. It was attached as the property of the mortgager. The mortgage was of a date anterior to the attachment and receipt.

12. State v. Homer Copy cite
    40 Me. 438 Supreme Judicial Court of Maine July 1, 1885
    Not cited

    Appleton, J. The defendant was indicted for keeping a house of ill fame. The allegations in the indictment are clearly sufficient. They show the commission of an offence *442 prohibited by R. S., c. 160, § 15 ; State v. Stevens, (not yet reported); Commonwealth

13. Inhabitants of Dixfield v. Newton Copy cite
    41 Me. 221 Supreme Judicial Court of Maine July 1, 1856
    Cited by 1

    Tenney, C. J. At the time John C. Kidder delivered his quitclaim deed of the premises in question, to the plaintiffs, it is admitted that the mortgage to him from the tenant had not been foreclosed, the means taken to effect a foreclosure having proved abortive

14. Plummer v. Rundlett Copy cite
    42 Me. 365 Supreme Judicial Court of Maine July 1, 1856
    Not cited

    Rice, J. There are errors in the account as rendered by the trustee, and referred to as a part of his disclosure. He should charge himself with the bill of furniture amounting to $805. He is not entitled to credit for the $500 check of June 20, 1844. From all

15. Inhabitants of Wilton v. Inhabitants of New Vineyard Copy cite
    43 Me. 315 Supreme Judicial Court of Maine July 1, 1857
    Not cited

    Davis, J. By chapter 503 of the special laws of 1856, certain “ territory, with the inhabitants thereon,” was set off from the town of Strong and annexed to the town of New Vineyard. At the time of the passage of this act, March 28, 1856,. Jacob Welch and his

16. Waterhouse v. County Commissioners Copy cite
    44 Me. 368 Supreme Judicial Court of Maine July 1, 1857
    Not cited

    Tenney, C. J. The petitioner, representing certain proceedings to have been had under the petition of Charles Millett and als., touching the location of a highway through certain towns situated in the county of Cumberland, but which now constitute a part of the

17. Parker v. Vose Copy cite
    45 Me. 54 Supreme Judicial Court of Maine July 1, 1858
    Cited by 1

    The opinion of the Court was drawn up by Tenney, C. J. It does not appear in the report, that the claims of the plaintiff, as originally existing, are denied; but that the defendants had not been credited, as a payment, the value of the bark Pilot Eish, which

18. Cummings v. Maxwell Copy cite
    45 Me. 190 Supreme Judicial Court of Maine July 1, 1858
    Not cited

    The opinion of the Court was drawn up by Hathaway, J. By R. S. of 1841, c. 76, § § 18, 19, 20, the remedy of the creditor of the corporation was to seize on execution the property of the individual stockholder, or, at his election, to have his action on the

19. Larrabee v. Rideout Copy cite
    45 Me. 193 Supreme Judicial Court of Maine July 1, 1858
    Cited by 1 Dissent · Cutting

    Cutting, J., dissenting.- — It appears -from the record of this Court,: at-the April term thereof, 1855, that the petitioner .“•had leave; to. discontinue his said petition' against the said Mary’Larrabee,”.-who was allowed her cost, for which she re *207 ceived

20. Wood v. Holden Copy cite
    45 Me. 374 Supreme Judicial Court of Maine July 1, 1858
    Not cited

    The opinion of the Court was drawn up by Tenney, C. J. The parties, in legal form, “ agreed to submit the demand with the cause of action set forth in the writ, hereto annexed, to,” &c. The action is trespass, and the writ makes a part of the case. The claim

Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.