The Portland daily press., 1895-07-19
ANDROSCOGGIN COUNTY.


Ada F. Garcelon, oompl't, for increase
of damages Argued orally.
Sec Geo. + M I9CsIln Tascps I, atwood H
Albert M. Penley, complt. for increase
of damages Argued orally.
George e. McCann. ~
W. H. Judkins, county attorney.
John A Morrill,,
Tascus Atwood for A. NJ Ryerson.
Florilla Williams VS.. The Maine State
Relief Association. Argued orally.
Noble and Crockett. S. L. Larrabee.
e. G. Renolds.
State VS.. Leon Hutchings. Argued
orally.
W. H. Judkins county attorney.
Swasey and Briggs.
YORK COUNTY.
George W. Hilton VS.. Phoenix Insur-
ance Co. Argued in writing
George +. Haley. n. & H B. Cleaves.
Laura Manning VS. VIM r. Stevens
Exceptions overruled for want of prose-
cution.
A. F. Moulton. Frank and Larrabee
Henry Reny, libel't VS. Lizzie Reny.
of prosecution.
Hamilton and Cleayes.
G. S. Hamilton
Max L. Lizotte
Paul Touregny VS.. Vldori Houle. Sub
mltted on briefs.
Frank Wilson, Low and Haley.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY.
James R. Atkins VS. Edward L. Field.
Argued in writing. s
B. Th ompson. A. W. Bradbury.
Bruins wick Gas Light Co. vs. United
Gas, Fuel and Light Co. Argued in
writing.
B. Potter. George W. Heselton.
The Brunswick Gas Light Co. VS. John
II. Flanagan and Tr. Argued in
writing.
George E. Hughes.
Bradbury and McQuillan
Elroy Davis VS.. D. W. Burbank.
Neither party.
VI. L. LeZotte Seth W. Fife
Hamilton & Cleayes.
Symonds, Snow & Cook
Nancy B. Fuller VS.. Mary B. Lamb,
admir- Settled.
Symonds, Snow & Cook. NJ P. Frank.
Looney.
George Il. Seaman in equity, vs.
dismissed
W. II. Looney. Leroy L. Hight.
Ruth Stevens VS.. Edgar O. Stevenson
ct al. Motion overruled for want of
prosecution.
L. B. bennett. Frank and Larrabee.
ct al. Exceptions overruled for want of
prosecution.
B. Thompson. Symonds, Snow &Cook.
The following rescript was sent down
by the Law: court:
KENNEBEC COUNTY.
William S. Grant VS.. William W. Brad
street ct al.
Peters, 1.-The respondent, W. B.,
promised his brother, P. B., that if the
brother would refrain from making will
and thus leave the respondent, as heir and
next of kin, the sole inheritor of all his
brothers estate he, the respondent, would
pay certain annuity out of such estate
to certain relative of the two parties.
Held: That such promise, if acted up
on, may, be enforced in equity, the court
abiding by the case of Fitzpatrick VS..
Glidden, 81 Maine 1877.
The promise, however, must be proved
by clear and convincing evidence,
especially where the proof is oral and not
in any part written.
The ground upon which equity obtains
jurisdiction in such case is that it |
would be fraud for party to avoid
such contract merely because it is not
attended with the usual legal formalities
when the promise may be as certainly |
and safely proved in equity without such |
formalities
In no ordinary case would the court be |
satisfied to rely on the oral evidence of |
one witness as sufficient to establish such |
an alleged promise, especially against the |
positive denial of the respondent, unless |
the testimony of the single witness be |
supported by considerable amount of |
direct or indirect confederation.
1t was admissible for the complainant
to show. in support Of such promise, |
that the donor shortly before his death |
and prior to the occasion when the
promise was made said to another person
that he should direct the respondent to
make donation to the complainant; and
such testimony has a very str ong
probatiye force, in aid of other evidence
to prove the complainant's contention.
The opinion contains discussion of
the evidence upon which the court sus-
tains the bill.
Decree below affirmed with additional
costs.