The Portland daily press., 1890-09-20
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT.
LAW TERM-wEsTERN DISTRICT.

LAW TERM-wEsTERN DISTRICT.
The following decisions by the law court.
with rescripts by Judge Virgin, have been
received by the clerk of courts:
OXFORD COUNTY.
. Roscoe F. Cross ct ais, in CO., VS.. Alpheus 5.
Bean, ct ais.
Rescript- When the owner of lot of lana
agrees to sell 1t for an agreed price to another
who agrees to pay IT, equity treats the vendee as
the equitable owner and the vendor as holding
the legal title in trust for him; which tf9st To-
chaser for valuable consideration without notice
of the original vendee's equitable title.
The finding by the presiding justice who heard
the case on Bill. answer and proof that the de-
PENDANT, Bean, was not a bonafde purchaser
without notice, is amply sustained by the evil
dence.
Bill sustained.
Plaintiffs to recover costs against Bean. but
not against Freeman. Freeman to recover no
cosIS Decree according to opinion.
KNOX COUNTY.
Camden Savings Bank VS.. iona. p. Cley.
Rescript-lf the maker of promissory note
payable 10 one year with interest at eight per
to IL y Of
fraud, have the excess then deducted from the
principal.
1885, and no further payments of interest as
such having been subsequently made, the clerk is
the rate of six per cent after the above date to the
last day OF the April term, 1890, In accordance
with the rule In Leonard v. Wildes's SO Me, 265.
Judgment for the plaintiff for the amount due
on the note.
YORK COUNTY.
Charles Paquette VS.. City of Biddeford.
HescTtpt-Assumpsit for expenses necessarily
incurred for the relief of pauper by an inhabi-
tant OF Biddeford not liable for his support. after
notice and request to the overseers, under r. g..
chap. "a, sec. AZ.
"No question was made over the amount of the
bill or item." The only question raised in de-
fence was whether the action should have been
brought 10 the name Of the plaintiff OF his wife
who were husband and wife and living together
In that relation at the time the board and ether
relief were furnished.
The presiding justice decliaed to give the in
sruction requested by the defendant s'that there
was no suf1cient evidence TO show that the plain
till furnished any care medicine or supplies at
charged; but did instruct the Jury that the
evidence would warrant verdict flor the plain
tin: ana unless tney saw some reason to dsbe-
lieve the testimony they should find for the plain
tiff, and they did.
The testimony came through interpreters and
is very meagre; but on the whole, as the wife will
be concluded.by this result and the defendant
cannot be yexed by another action and is liable
to one or the other for the amount sued for we
think exceptions should be overruled. Sampson
v. Alexander, GO Me-, 1872. Exceptions over
WALDO COUNTY.
Inhabitants OF Searsmont vs. Inhabitants of
Rescript-The testimony was very conflicting
on the principal issue relating to the residence OF
the pauperlin Searsmont; but as the verdict Is
well founded on testimony, if true, we do not
deem 1t case for interference on the part of the
court
When single sentence in a charge is excepted
to. which was simply used as an illustration of an
extreme proposition of law, but when considered
upon the same topic it appears that the jury could
not have been misled. the exceptions will not be
sustained. Motions and exceptions overruled.