Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1913-04-05

| Der or bar railing from the raised door
of the Maine Central car
On October y, 1911, the plaintiff
wrote to the Maine Central company,
describing the injury and asking if
the railroad company would be willing
to give him his time
In response to this, the railroa d
claim agent went to Pennington and
met the plaintiff at the hoted on the
evening of November 3, 1911 when
after some preliminary conversation
and negotiation the plaintiff accepted
the sum of S35 in full settlement, and
signed release discharging both the
Maine Central +. r. Co and the de-
PENDANT corporation from all claims
and demands of every nature arising
from the accident At the trial, tn
plaintiff obtained verdict in his
favor.
Without considering the question as
to whether the defendant was legally
liable for the injury caused by a de-
feet in the car of the Maine Central
r. r. Co, it is
Held,
l. That the burden resting on the
written release is a heavy one, because
written documents duly signed are not
to be lightly disregarded and set aside.
In the absence of fraud or unconscion-
able advantage or mental incapacity.
such settlement should stand
That in this case, not one of the
destructive elements is present The
plaintiff took the initial step looking to-
ward a settlement. The parties met on
an equality. The plaintiff was Il man
of mature years, intelligent and capable
IN fpI nj
vantage was taken Of him, and no false
representations were made to him by tie
representatives of the railroad. When
the settlement WAS made. both parties
undoubtedly were of The opinion that the
injury WITS not so serious as it proved to
be; but the settlement was honestly
made agd must stand. The mere fact
that subsequent recovery was not SO
rapid as plaintiff expected affords no
ground for annullng it.
The verdict is manifestly wrong.
Motion sustained.
Verdict set aside.
Somerset County Case.
Sarah II. Gledhill VS.. Alice w. Nc
Coombs.
Rescript. Cornish, ].
In an action for money had and re-
ceived brought by the plaintiff. the
mother of Edwin Gledhill, deceased
q gainst his wife to recover the sum
Of $9907. A.. the proceeds of a life in
surance policy taken out by said Gled-
hill on Nov. 5, 1901. and payable in
the event of his death To his cXccu-
tors, administrators and assigns, and
alleged to have been given TO the
plaintiff.
Held
!. That a policy of life insurance,
payable To the legal representatives OF
the assured. may be made the subject
of q gift: md such gift may be effected
by mere delivery. without assignment.
of the instrument. If accompanied BY
such words or acts on the part of the
donor as indicate a clear intention to
give, coupled with the subsequent re-
or beneficial interest which passes, while
The naked legal title remains IN the
donor.
2 That to establish a gift of this ma
ture, when the donor has deceased and
the opportunity for fraud is great. the
evidence should be full, clear and con-
g. That the evidence in this case
meets this requirement and is ample TO
establish the gift. 1t comes not merely
from members of the family. but from
and business associates of the
and stands uncontradicted.
L. That the action was property
bi ought against the defendant person.
ally, instead of against her admins
tratrix of the estate. because the policy
did not belong 20 the estate and the de-