Case Name: Frances Tasker vs. Inhabitants of Farmingdale
Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Maine
Decision Date: 1900-06-15
Citations: 94 Me. 257
Docket Number: 
Parties: Frances Tasker vs. Inhabitants of Farmingdale.
Judges: Sitting: Wiswell, C. J., Emery, Haskell, Savage, Fogler, Powers, JJ.
Reporter: Maine Reports
Volume: 94
Pages: 257–265

Head Matter:
Frances Tasker vs. Inhabitants of Farmingdale.
Kennebec.
Opinion June 15, 1900.
New Trial. Verdict.
Three verdicts in favor of the plaintiff having been set aside by this court as against evidence, (85 Me., 523; 88 Me., 103; 91 Me., 521) at the fourth trial, no new testimony having been introduced, the presiding justice ordered a verdict for the defendant. Held; that such verdict was properly ordered, and exceptions thereto should be overruled. Whitehouse, J., dissenting.
See Tasker v. Farmingdale, 85 Maine, 523; lb. 88 Maine, 103; lb. 91 Maine, 521.
On Exceptions by Plaintiff.
This was an action on the case to recover damages for personal injuries received through a defect in the defendant’s highway.
After both plaintiff and defendant had presented all their testimony, the presiding justice ordered the jury to return a verdict for the defendant. To this order the plaintiff was allowed exceptions.
A. M. Spear, for plaintiff.
O. I). Baker and F. L. Staples, for defendant.
Sitting: Wiswell, C. J., Emery, Haskell, Savage, Fogler, Powers, JJ.

Opinion:
Fogler, J.
This case has been three times tried to the jury and a verdict has, in each instance, been returned in the plaintiff's favor. Each verdict has been set aside by this court on the ground that the plaintiff's negligence contributed to her injuries. Eight justices of this court, four of whom are now members of the court, have concurred in setting aside one or more of such verdicts. At the fourth trial the testimony introduced by the parties differed in no materia] respect from that introduced at the former trials. The presiding justice properly ordered a verdict for the defendant. His ruling was in accord with the decision of this court, thrice expressed, and he must be considered as having acted under the direction of the Law Court.
We think the order of the presiding justice should stand and that the exceptions should be overruled.
Exceptions overruled.