Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1915-12-08
YORK COUNTY.

willard F. Murphy, ct ais in Equity. VS.
Utah Mining, Milling and Transportation
Co itescript. Spear, J.
Willard F. Murphy OF Eiddeford, a
minority stockholder and seven other
minority stockholders, under date of Au-
gust 2o, 1914 under the provisions OF
Chapter IS of the Public Laws of 1905. as
amended by the Laws of 1907, Chapter 1S7.
brought a bill! in equity against the de-
PENDANT corporation asking that the cor
poraticn be dissolved and that a re-
ceiver he appointed, both temporary and
permanent, to wind UP Its affairs. The
sitting Justice sustained the bill. The
plaintiffs bill contains allegations that
the corporation should be dissolved be-
cause by the gross mismanagement of its
affairs it wes in imminent danger Of inscl-
vency, and because there was danger
that the estate and effects would be
wasted and because it had ceased t" do
business. Not only did the sitting justice
have before him direct and positive testi-
mony regarding the financial condition
and abandoned operation of the de-
PENDANT company but also the spirit of
the whole transaction manifested by the
attitude of the officers and majority of
the stockholders toward the life or death
of this moribund institution.
Appeal denied with additional costs.
Received Dec G, 1915.
Harry Z. Lunge, Applt., VS.. Nellie ].
Abbott. Rescript, King, J.
l. The fact of agency can be estab-
lished by proof of any facts or circum-
stances from which agency can reason
ably and logically be inferred. The mar
rage relation of the parties, however.
is not alone enough to establish the fact
that the one is the agent of the other.
But where the question is whether a nus
band was the agent of his wife In tran
sactions for the repair and improvement
of her property. the marriage relation.
and the wife's situation and the condition
of her health at the time are of signiti-
canoe. in connection with the nature OF
the work contracted for. So. too. is the
fact that the husband had transacted
similar business with her approval and
for which she recognized her RESPONSE
bilty.
2 Upon q proper submission of the
question to them, the jury decided that
the defendants husband was her agent
in having a furnace put in her house in
her absence from home. Held: that
there was evidence which reasonably JUS
titled the jury in so deciding.
3. An excepting party must show that
he has teen preiudiced by the ruling.
4. ii requested instructions are not per-
tinent and applicable to the case, though
containing ? correct statement of alb
st-act principles OF law, they may prop
ery lie refused.
). Exceptions will not be sustained to
a refusal TO give special requests, thoug:.
they may be reasonably applicable to
some features of the case. provided am
pie and correct instructions nave already
been given.
6. The instructions given We're peril
nent 10 the only issue involved in the
case, We're sound in law. and clearly and
explicitly presented.
:. The requested instructions appear 70
lie . verbatim copy OF all the para craps
OF thc head note in the case Of Stewart
Church 1n2 Maine. 50. None cf them
were peculiarly applicable to the facts
I! in This case, and some Of them We're
Z wholly napplicabie thereto
$. We DO not fird any reversible error
in the ruling refusing them The jury
had already been fully and amply in
str"eted. 1t does rot appear that the
\ complained CT. ..-.
Motion and exceptions overrGlcd.
Received Zee. 6, 1g15.