The Portland daily press., 1876-07-25
Supreme Judicial Court.

Law IEhM-NESIEhN DlolhlCI.
Present-Appleton, Chief Justice; Dickerson, Bar
rows, Danforth Virgin and Libbey, Associate Justi-
ces.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS Sweetsir VS.. Boston s. Maine
Railroad. On report. Assumpsit for about six
Thousand yards Of earth-$6OO.
Defence-the agent OF the company has no right to
bind them except in the manner provided by stat
ute in taking earth from "borrow pits" and there
fore this was trespass and assumpsit will not lie.
Reply-though provision is made to take bor-
row pit by force, that does not prevent them from
taking one by consent and contract.
Fairfield for plaintiff. Yeaton for defendants.
George A. Frost in eq. VS.. Theodate Frost ct ais.
Lord submits his brief for plaintiff; Kimbal to fur
nish his brief in ten days.
Zetique Dupont VS.. Henry Butler. To be argued
in writing by Copeland for defendant for new
rial. Yeaton, contra.
Inhabitants of School District No. in Sanford VS..
Simon Tibbetts. The court at nisi prins ordered
nonsuit Kimba for plaintiff asks to set aside. Low
for defendant says Tibbetts did have $4O that the
district sued before demand, and that he has paid it,
Hannah f. Ford VS.. Boston & Maine Railroad.
She obtained verdict for $4,000 at the May term at
Alfred tor injuries she received in alighting from the
defendants cars while in motion at Old Orchard
Beach on the evening Of November 80, 1875. The
verdict was obtained on the ground that the train
did not stop long enough for plaintiff to alight.
The defendants ask to set it aside on the ground
that did stop long enough for her well others
to alght with safety, if she had improved her time
and not daied, and also on the ground that she was
positively careless; that she leaped from moving
train ,beng forewarned of the danger and knowing
it.
Drew for plaintiff. Yeaton for defendants.
Samuel McKenny VS.. Daniel Carter ct al. AT the
trial Libby of the Defendants defended against
the note in suit, on which he a cosigner on the
ground that he was in fact surety and the plaintiff
knew it and neglected to collect the money of Car.
ter the real principal when he had the opportunity
Carter afterwards failed. Libby obtained a verdict
which the plaintiff moved to set aside.
Eastman for plaintiff. Tapley tor Libby.
.Iobn H. Seed VS.. Noah E. Lord. Report. ke-
nevin for wool purchased by Briefly & Son, traders
at Acton. of plaintiff in New York, when the pur-
cbasers were on the eve of bankruptcy The plaintiff
reclaimed 1t and after putting it on to cart Brier-
ls creditors attached 1t as THEIRS and Seed brought
this suit.
Copeland claimed that the report shows as lac'
that the Brierlys did not intend at the time the.
obtained the wool in New York to pay for 1t, ana III
argued as a matter of law that was such fraud a:
Initiated the sale. He claimed further as matter Of
fact that the wool restored to them by consent
of the Brerys for the that they were unable
to perform the conditions entering into the sale.
Burleigh for the defendant claims that th'
Brierys as matter of fact did intend pay and tina
it was real purchase.
York docket finished. Court Adjourned early.
The Cumberland bar are notified that their case
are in order this Tuesday at a. m.