Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1905-12-12

Penobscot County Frank w. Good
| win by next friend. VS.. 1nhs. of
Charleston. Rescript by White
! house, j.
| Inc plaintiff was minor of the age
OF ~ years residing with his father in
the defendant town of Charleston.
which did not maintain a free high
school giving at least one four years
course. During the school year 1923,
! the plaintiff attended the Higgins
! Classical Institute of Charleston
/ in Charleston a school of standard
grade approved by the State
I Superintendent of Schools. Ac-
cording to the practice prevailing
IN that institution, he was permitted
to enter and pursue his studies
through this freshman year without
any certificate of qualification from
! the school committee of the town. On
the sixth day of December. 1903. the
/ plaintiff took an examination before
, the school committee of the town, but
! failed to receive from that board a
certificate of qualification to enter
Higgins Classical Institute. Notwith-
standing this fact. by permission of
those having charge of the Institute
the plaintiff entered upon his second
or sophomore year in that school and
! maintained good rank" in his studies
! during the fall and winter terms of
! That year. Although requested, the
town officers refused to pay the plain
/ t!fS tuition for those two terms and
| the amount was thcreupon paid to the
institute by the Plaintiffs father This
action was brought in the name of
the plaintiff by his next friend to re-
cover from the town the amount thus
| voluntarily paid by his father. The
presiding justice ruled that this ac-
ton in the name of the plaintiff was
not maintainablc and ordered judg-
ment for the defendant. The case
comes to this court on exceptions to
this ruling.
1t is the opinion of the court that
the ruling of the presiding justice was
correct. Whether or not under the
provisions of the Revised Statute,
Chap. Is. Sec. G3, the Higgins Classical
Institute could have maintained an
action to recover the tuition of a pu-
Pill who was thus permitted to enter
the school without a certificate of
qualification from the school COM
mittec. if the amount had not been
paid by the pupils father and wheth-
er under the same circumstances the
father could have maintained an ac-
ton against the town in his own name
for the tuition thus paid by him, are
questions not now before the court.
The only question now presented for
determination is whether this action
brought in the name of the pupil him.
self by his next friend, can be MAIN
| tanned to recover from the town the
amount of the tuition voluntarily paid
| to the Institute by his father and our
conclusion is that the situation dis
closed by the evidence constitutes no
| legal basis for the plaintiffs action.
! he was minor and never undertook
| TO make any contract in his own be-
half respecting his tuition at the Insti-
| tute. He personally incurred no legal
Indebtedness. made no expenditure
, sustained no loss and acquired no right
! of action. The entry must therefore
be
Exceptions overruled
Reed Dec. IL, 1905.
The following are the new entries
I from Androscoggin county: Carrier VS..
! Ward; State VS.. Barbelais, appellant;
! Victoria Acctylenc Co. VS.. Gushing.
| The following are the continued cases
! from AndrosCnggin county:
i Aetna Life Insurance Co. VS.. Tremb-
ley, ct ais; Hewey VS.. Metropolitan Life
| Insurance Co; Neal VS.. Rendall; st.
| I1ilairc, petitioner for habeas corpus ;
| Union Water Power Co., VS.. Inhabi-
| tants of Lewiston.
| The only new entry from Aroostook
county is that of the Inhabitants of
/ Houlton VS.. Titcomb, ct ais.
( The continued cases from Aroostook
! county are as follows: Hurd vs. Chase;
Milton VS.. Canadian Pacific Railway
Co.; Pomroy VS.. Bangor & Aroostook
| Railroad Co.; Powers ct ais VS.. Sawyer.
The following are the new entries
from Cumberland county: Albee VS..
Frazier: Buckley VS.. Dole; Conant, APP
pellant, from decision of the county
commissioners; Inhabitants of Casco
VS.. the Inhabitants of Limington: Jor-
dan, ct ais, selectmen of Cape Eliza
beth, petitioners for amendments of
town records; Lougee VS.. Grand Trunk
Railway Co.; Proctor VS.. Maine Central
Railroad Co; Pencil. lbellant, vs. IN
toXicatirg Liquor City of Portland, ap-
peilant and claimant; Smith, petitioner,
vs. Libby, ct ais; State VS.. Doyle, APP
t RELIANT; State VS.. Gallagher, appellant;
State VS.. Gallagher, appellant; State VS..
Joliey, appellant; State VS.. Varney;
State VS.. Gallagher
The continued cases from Cumber-
/ land county are as follows: American
Board Of Commissioners for Foreign
Missions. appellant from decree OF
judge of probate; Biekford vs. Aetna
insurance Co.: Carson VS.. Calhoun, ap-
peiiant; Great Northern Paper Co.
Lombard Water Wheel Gov. Co.:
Hughes ct ais in equity VS.. Goodwin ct
ais; Jensen VS.. Keyer: Lombard Water
Wheel Gov. Co. VS.. the Great Northern
Paper Co.; Mayo VS.. Leighton: Neale
VS.. Allen; Raymond VS.. Portland Rail-
road Co.; Sargent VS.. Perry; State VS.
lrederickson. appellant; State VS..
f'redcrickson; Storrs trustee in euuity
VS.. Burgess ct ais; Wells VS.. Dane ct
ais.
! The cutting of the Panama isthmus by
means of n shin cano1 will y,,ippla ~.