The independent-reporter. [volume] (Skowhegan, Me.) 1909-1955, 1912-12-26
MAINE LAW COURT HAS HANDED down
RESCR|PTS IN SOMERSET CASES
Carl Holt, Skowhegan; Linn Woolen Co., Hart
land, Catherine Bigelow, Pittsfield, Plaintiffs

The Law court has handed reseripts
rescript in the following Somerset
in the following Somerset County law
cases:
DECISION IN HOLT CASE.
Carl NJ. Holt vs.. New England Tel.
G. Tel Co. Rescript, Spear, J.
This Is an action in assumpsit in
which the plaintiff seeks to recover
$500 for an alleged breach of contract.
The plaintiff AYERS that he was the
owner of 351 shares of the capital
stock of the Central Maine Telephone
Co., a corporation organized under the
laws of Maine and having its place
of business at Skowhegan, Maine; that
IN the 9th day of February, that he
entered into a contract whereby he
agreed to sell $50 shares, majority
Of the capital stock of the Central
Maine Telephone Co. to the New Eng
land Telephone & Telegraph Co., also
a corporation duly organized by law:
that the contract contained the follow
ing stipulation; at is further agreed
by the Telephone Co. that if it shall
not within two years from the date of
this agreement transfer to said Cen
trail Maine Telephone Co. its plant
and equipment connected with the OPP
Grafton of it's present telephone ex-
change at Skowhegan, Me, 1t will pay
to said Holt the further sum of $500;
that on the 14th day of March, 1905,
he transferred to the defendant the
}51 shares, as stipulated; and that in
all other respects he did fully perform
all the requirements of the contract
of sale between himself and the de
PENDANT; but that the defendant, not
withstanding the plaintiffs compli--
ince with all the terms Of the cef
tract, failed and refused to perform
its agreement and promise contained
in the written memorandum above set
forth that, if it did not within two
y tdlO HUN llt dtilt vi lIlt eAsoi t1liANii I
transfer its equipment and in eX-
change ii would forfeit to the plaintiff
the sum of $4,000 All these allega-
tons are admitted by the defendant,
but are sought to be avoided upon the
argument Of waiver and estoppel. We
think this contention must prevail.
On May 10th, 1906, the annual meet
ing of the stockholders Of the Central
Maine Telephone CO. was called at
its Office at Hinckley, Me. This meet
ing WAS adjourned to May u, 1906, at
Hotel Gerald, Fairfield At this meet
ing, over which the plaintiff presided
and in which he was elected It direct
or, ard in all the deliberations OF
which he took part, action was taken
which provided for the transfer OF the
Central Maine, the plaintiffs own
company. to the Maine Tel & Tel
Co, and contemplated the transfer of
the defendant company. This was the
meeting during which were presented
all the discussions. conversations,
purposes and votes, calculated to con
summate the reorganization repre-
scented in this change in the original
contract
The plaintiff remained silent, al
though an active participant in the
whole transaction from beginning to
end. He also fully participated in
the accomplishment of the re-organi-
cation, after the stockholders meet
ing was held in pursuance of the act
ion thereof.
We cannot avoid the conclusion that
/ Icy this silent acluiescence and active
participation, the plaintiff waived his
right under the original contract on
was estopped to assert it,
Exceptions Oycrruled.