Case Name: Joseph H. Mitchell vs. William J. Sutherland and others
Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Maine
Decision Date: 1882-08-02
Citations: 74 Me. 100
Docket Number: 
Parties: Joseph H. Mitchell vs. William J. Sutherland and others.
Judges: Walton, VirgiN, Peters and SymoNDS, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: Maine Reports
Volume: 74
Pages: 100–101

Head Matter:
Joseph H. Mitchell vs. William J. Sutherland and others.
Piscataquis.
Opinion August 2, 1882.
Practice. Demurrer. Attachment. Jurisdiction. Treble costs.
B. S., c. 82, § 19.
"When it is claimed that an attachment, "by which to that extent jurisdiction is gained of an action in which the defendants are non-residents of this state, is of property exempt from attachment, that cannot be taken advantage of by demurrer.
(Such a demurrer would be deemed frivolous, and would entitle the plaintiff to treble costs under R. S., c. 82, § 19.
On exceptions.
Assumpsit on account annexed for twenty-three dollars and 'ten cents. The writ was dated March 26, 1878, and the officer ¡attached " six one-half barrels of coal subject to former attachment of William Lane.” The defendants are described as residing in Boston, Massachusetts, co-partners in the business of ■ quarrying slate in Monson, Maine, under thé firm name of The Oakland Slate Quarry Company. The questions presented by the exceptions of the defendants to the ruling.of the court in .overruling their demurrer, are stated in the opinion.
■Henry Hudson, for the plaintiff.
D. L. Savage, for the defendants.

Opinion:
Appleton, C. J.
This is a demurrer to a declaration in ¡assumpsit on an account annexed and in the usual form.
One ground of demurrer is that there is no seal on the writ. 'But the copy furnished by the excepting party and. certified by ithe clerk, must be deemed correct. In this it appears that there was a seal on the original writ.
It is next objected that the attachment of coal, by which to that extent jurisdiction is gained, the defendants residing out of the state, is of property which by B. S., c. 81, § 59, par. 4, is exempt. But that cannot be taken advantage of by demurrer. It does not appear but that the defendants had .coal to the amount of the exemption, which has not been attached. In such case no wrong is done.
The demurrer must be deemed frivolous, and the plaintiff is entitled to treble costs. E. S., e. 82, § 19.
Exceptions overruled. Plaintiff to recover treble costs.
Walton, VirgiN, Peters and SymoNDS, JJ., concurred.