From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pratt v. Chapman

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. Cumberland County
Mar 7, 1925
128 A. 3 (Me. 1925)

Opinion

Decided March 7, 1925.

Harry E. Nixon, for plaintiff. George Libby, for defendant.


On exceptions and motion for new trial by defendant. To sustain exceptions they must contain within themselves sufficient to show that the excepting party is aggrieved. Lenfest v. Robbins, 101 Maine, 176. Moreover, exceptions cannot be sustained unless the excepting party clearly and affirmatively shows that the ruling, made the subject of exceptions, is prejudicial to him and that he has been thereby prejudiced. Smith v. Booth Bros., 112 Maine, 304; Googins v. Skillings, 118 Maine, 299; Rent, Admr. v. Portland Candy Co., 122 Maine, 25. These burdens the defendant has not sustained, nor has he sustained the burden of showing that the verdict is so manifestly wrong that it should be disturbed by the motion. Motion and exceptions overruled.


Summaries of

Pratt v. Chapman

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. Cumberland County
Mar 7, 1925
128 A. 3 (Me. 1925)
Case details for

Pratt v. Chapman

Case Details

Full title:ALBERT N. PRATT vs. EDWARD K. CHAPMAN

Court:Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. Cumberland County

Date published: Mar 7, 1925

Citations

128 A. 3 (Me. 1925)
124 Me. 443

Citing Cases

State Board of Technical Registration v. McDaniel

Lastly we consider the third charge which presents the most difficult problem. It reads: 3. "The said Leonard…