Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1915-03-09
FROM Law COURT
Decisions of Importance Handed
Down in Cases from Andres
coggin, Cumberland and York
Counties

OF the state OF Maine have been received
at the Office Of the clerk of courts in this
city. They are in York, Cumberland and
LAnnroscoggin cases and are given below
State OF Maine by Information Of the
Attorney General, vs.. York Light &
Heat Company
Hanson. J.-This Is an information in
the nature OF quo warranto. The de-
PENDANT demurred, and the case is before
us upon exceptions 10 the order over
ruling the demurrer. The complainant
attacks the corporation and asks for q
surrender OF its CHARTERED rights upon a
general statement Of n1isuser of it's fran
| chise. without specifying acts ccnstitut-
ing misuser. or stating any definite time
when such n1isuser occurred, or whether
| single acts or continuous misuser of its
franchises constituted the ground of
| complaint.
Hold, Ito aliege the breach OF con-
dition in general terms is TO assert a con-
ciusion Of Law, and the plainest princi-
pies Of good pleading require that the
act or acts or the instances Of failure
to act should be specified in order that
the court may see whether or not when
taken in connection with the charter they
amount to breach and cause Of for
feiture. The reasonableness OF this rule
! is apparent when it is considered that
when one is injured by a breach of duty,
he must know better than any one else
| IN what the act or neglect consists.
>. 1t is settled jaw that certainty OF
allegation is Indispensable, that the COM
plainant must make his complaint sutfi-
GENTLY full and explicit to show that he
has a Ease to establish, and thus bring
himself within the common law rule OF
pleading. that all the essential facts
must be averred positively. IAese gen.
eral rules apply TO the form OF the ALE
cations as we'll as TO their sufficiency.
J. In this state quo rwarranto is a civil
action. so determined and classified by
the Legislature, and so considered by the
court, and consistently with the rule uni
versaIy adopted in common law plead
ing. we hold that the complaint must
aver the acts or omissions constituting
lne nlisuser complained of concisely and
clearly.
4 The p1eadings in such an action are
governed in general by the rules appli-
cable in ordinary civil actions. BY such
rules the complainant is required TO set
forth the facts on which he relies, pos
itively and with certainty, in order that
tine court may be able to determine
. whether a wrong has been done TO the
public.
- Information in the nature of quo
twarranto is however, the appropriate
remedy against & corporation for abuse
of power, misuse of privilege, malfeas-
ance or non-feasance
G. In this case demurrer was properly
interposed and this conclusion is SUP
ported by well nigh universal judicial
agreement that any defect in the struct-
ire OF the information may be taken ad-
vantage Of by demurrer.
: The relief to be granted does not
depend upon the prayer for relief, but
upon the complaint and the evidence,
and from the nature of the complaint,
a resort to extraordinary remedy, it is
surely but fair 10 require the complain
ant to reveal what he knows, to state
his full case, so that the court may have
sufficient information to authorize and
justify the later steps necessary in quo
w-lrraT2to-in short, the state above all
other suito1s can afford to inform the
court frankly, fully anl in detail what
Is believed 10 De an Injury OF lltidCG ~
the public Such course will surely safe
guard the interest of a complainant. and
accomplish another end of equal impor-
lance in safeguarding the interests OF
the individuals adverse to the complain
ant
Exceptions sustained.
Cumberland County Case.
Henry Dennis VS., Waterford Packing
Company.
| Rescript by Savage, c. J. !. The court
| is not bound to consider exceptions, un-
less the bill of exceptions itself states
the grounds Of exception in a summary
manner; nor unless il states the evil
dence, concerning the admission or ex-
clusion of which complaint is made. and
enough Of the contentious or issues in
the case to show that it was relevant or
/ irrelevant, material or immaterfal, com.
petent or incompetent as the case may
| be; nor, unless it contains the requested
/ instructions, to the refusal Of which ex-
/ ception Is taken, and sufficient matter to
show that the requested instructions
were appropriate
2 Neither the reference in bill OF
exceptions TO the body Of the evidence
nor the Incorporation of the evidence as