The Republican journal., 1913-01-09
Decisions of the Law Court.
Rescripts in Two Waldo County Cases.

Inc law court mas udNucu uo"h AS
scripts in two important Waldo county
cases. In the action of assumpsit OF
Robert A. McGray VS.. Orrin B. Wood
bury plaintiff exceptions to non-sult
are overruled The plaintiff is declared
non-suit in the case of Eben A. Holmes
VS.. Harriet A. Adams. The full text OF
the rescripts is as follows:
Robert A. McGray VS.. Orrin B. Wood
bury. Rescript, Hanson, J.
This is an action of assumpslt tor
goods sold and delivered, and comes to
this court on plaintiffs exec ptions to the
ruling of the presiding justice ordering
non-suit.
The plaintiff was grocer in East
Knox, and occupied store belonging TO
the defendant under lease OF five years.
The lease was still in force. The de-
PENDANT held a mortgage on the goods IN
the store for $500 There was a second
mortgage FIR $50. The stock inventorled
$775. 10, plaintiffs debts amounted to
S11Gl. 81, and he had no other property.
In January, 1912, the plaintiff entered
into an agreement with Walter Wood
bury, a brother OF the defendant, to Sell
to said Woodbury. the stock OF goods at
cost, and bonus OF $50. The plaintiff
delivered the key to the store and the
unexpired lease to the defendant. An
account of stock was taken, ard the
amount being larger than the buyer an
ticipated, he expressed doubt as to his
ability to pay. Thereupon the defendant
offered to take ''the stock off his hands. "
The plaintiff claimed that this offer was
accepted and agreed to by him. The de-
PENDANT saws the offer was not accepted.
Walter Woodbury. went to Belfast the
same day, and the next morning the
plaintiff and defendant rode to Belfast
together. On the way they met Waiter
Woodbury. returning. There was con-
ference in which the defendant asked his
brother ''if he had made up his rlnd
about the goods. and he testltles: II
told him | had made up my MIND to turn
them over to him. He said he would
take them off my hands and Mr.. Nc.
Gray said he was perfectly willing. -
The plaintiff and his witness are not IN
agreement as to this, the plaintiff claim
ing a sale to defendant at the store the
day before.
On reaching Belfast. the plaintiff and
defendant ascertained for the first time
that it was necessary to notify the credl-
tors of the plaintiff, as provided IN Chap
ter ia of the Public Laws of 1905. Ad-
vice of counsel was had and proper steps
taken to make valid sale. In reference
to this branch of the case the plaintiff
was asked: 20. Was it understood when
that (the list of creditors) was made,
that Mr.. Woodbury. would notify or send
the list and notices to the creditors! A.
That was the way l understood it. q.
You understood that he was not to pay
for the goods until that had been done
according to the statute, didn't you? A.
Why, yes, yes. Q. He refused to pay
anything that morning? A. Yes"
They undertook to comply with the
law, but creditors, exercising their rights,
attached the goods within five days from
the date of the meeting at Belfast.
Under such circumstances there could
be no sale to the defendant.
The plaintiff urges that Chapter ia,
of the Public Laws of 1905, which re-
quires full information to be given to
creditors, together with notice OF such
sale, is unconstitutional Sin that it de-
prives persons of their rights, privileges
and liberty to control thelr property,
and thus violates Section of Art. ! OF
the Constitution of Maine. We are of
the opinion that the objection stated is
insufficient to justify the conclusion that
the act is unconstitutional.
In }. P. Squire Co. VS.. Teller, lS5
Mass. Is, in which a similar statute was
under consideration, the court says: That
the purpose of the Legislature evidently
was to provide creditors protection
against a class of sales which are fire
quentlv fraudulent and which leave cred
itors with no means of collecting that
which they ought TO receive. That this
is within class Of Legislation for which
there is constitutional authority is too
plain for question The statute requires
of the vendor nothing that cannot be
done with reasonable effort. If he is
unable or unwilling to pay his debts, 1t
puts a substantial obstacle in his way
when be wants to dispose Of his stock OF
merchandise in bulk and receive payment
for himself. LemieuX vs.. Young, 21l
U. s. 4S9
The nor suit was properly ordered,
and the entry will be
Exceptions oVerrued.
Eben A. Holmes vs.. Harriet A.
Adams, Rescript, Hanson, J.
lnlS Is al dCllON LOT money udu ana
received, and comes to this court on the
following agreed statement of facts;
Aonzo Patterson, brother of the de-
PENDANT, Harriet A. Adams, was a resi-
den OF the State of Nevada and died in
that State previous to May 20, 1907,
leaving no widow or issue. His estate
was duly administered in the State of
Nevada, and the defendant, Harriet A.
Adams, on May 20, 1907, received from
the administrator of said estate the sum
of 81. 3l0.04 as her proportion of said es-
tate, being one-half of said estate, and
her brother, Frank N Patterson, received
the other half of said estate as his share.
The plaintiff in this action received no
part of said estate.
The following is correct copy of so
much of the Compiled Laws of the State
of Nevada, as relates to heirship of illeg-
itimate children or their offspring, COM
piled in 1900.
"Illegitimate Child-3046, Sec. ESQ.
Every Legitimate child shall be consider
ed as an her of the person who shall ac-
knowledge himself to be the father of
such child by signing in writing decla-
ration to that effect in the presence of
one credible witness, who shall sign the
declaration also as a witness, and shall
in all cases be considered as heir of the
mother, and shall inherit in whole or in
part, as the case may be, IN the same
manner as if born in lawful wedlock. The
icSl1a Of all paC 9ennpd mill IN 10y