The Portland daily press., 1880-02-14
Supreme Judicial court.


The following rescripts have been received from
the Law Court:
ANDRosCoGGIN COUNTY.
Nahum Morrill, vs.. Joshua Robinson Dr.
, feScTlpt by Symonds, j. The evidence offered by
the demandant fails to establish fraud in the pro-
curement OF the defendant s deed. In the absence
OF fraud. there being ambiguity uncertainty in
the terms OF the deed itself rbal admissions of the
defendant, like other parol testimony, we're inad-
mssible to modify or vary the legal effect. The
grantor, and his representatives, in such case are
estopped by the consideration clause in the deed
from alleging that it executed without consider
alton.
Judgment for defendant.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY.
Scottish Com. ms. Co. VS.. o. B. Plummer ct al.
Rescript by Symonds, j. No points. in which the
laws of New York differ from these of Maine in re-
gard to the legal effect of the bond on which the
suit is brought having been shown its construction
VIII be determined with reference to the laws of
this State The period of the defendants liability
not being limited by the terms of the bond-other-
wise than by the durat on of the agency-nor by
anything in the nature of the position held by the
agent, and the default having occurred within the
time during which he was the duly appointed agent
OF the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs primd facie have
right to resort to their remedy upon the bond The
requirement of an annual license by the statute
does not reduce the agency to an annual tenure. A
new appointment is not required at the expiration
OF a license. In order to renew the license. a GER
ucate that the agency still continues is all that in
this respect is necessary-R. s., chap. 49, 80. This
does not limit the agency to one year. Because the
agreed statement is silent about the license, the
Court will not presume that either the company or
the agent acted without one. Nothing appearing to
the contrary the presumption is in favor Of the le
gaity of contracts and the legal action of the con-
tracing parties.
Judgment for plaintiffs. Execution to issue for
S190.3S and interest from September 5th, 1877.
YORK COUNTY.
Sally Hanson, Ex.. Edwin Manson.
Rescript by Symonds, j. The rule is well settled
that, while testator if his intent in this respect is
clearly manifest from the will may apply the real
estate first to the payment of the debts in the alb
sence of express words manifest intention in the
will to that effect the law will first appropriate the
personality of that purpose. Neither the reversion
OF the real estate nor what remains of the personal
property at the widow decease is disposed of by the
will in this case, but the conclusion does not follow
that it was these either of them that the tesla
tor intended should be sold to pay debts The lega
cy, under the residuary clause, is not specific,
but general-Bradford VS.. Haines 20 Me-, 1913
and there is nothing in the gift of such residue of
the estate to the wife for life to exonerate the per-
sonaty from the payment of debts, for which it is
the primary fund to be used for that purpose even
before the descended real estate unless intent to
the contrary appears in the will
Decree of Probate Court affirmed.