Case Name: CITY OF SOUTH PORTLAND v. STATE PRINCIPALS' ASSOCIATION
Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Maine
Decision Date: 1972-07-21
Citations: 293 A.2d 525
Docket Number: 
Parties: CITY OF SOUTH PORTLAND v. STATE PRINCIPALS’ ASSOCIATION.
Judges: Before DUFRESNE, C. J„ and WEB-BER, WEATHERBEE, POMEROY, WERNICK and ARCHIBALD, JJ.
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 293
Pages: 525–525

Head Matter:
CITY OF SOUTH PORTLAND v. STATE PRINCIPALS’ ASSOCIATION.
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.
July 21, 1972.
Henry Steinfeld, Portland, for plaintiff.
Frank G. Chapman, Augusta, for defendant.
Before DUFRESNE, C. J„ and WEB-BER, WEATHERBEE, POMEROY, WERNICK and ARCHIBALD, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The City of South Portland by this action sought to recover from the State Principals' Association one-quarter of the net proceeds from two State Championship Football Games held in 1968 and 1969. The defendant Association made all the arrangements for the games, paid all expenses, including the cost of insurance, from the proceeds and divided the net proceeds on the basis of 50% to the defendant and 25% to each of the participating high schools. South Portland High School was a participant in both games and, in each case, the check for its share of the proceeds was made payable to the school.
By this action the plaintiff seeks to obtain from the defendant Association the sum of $1106.57 which represents 25% of the net proceeds from the two games and which would give plaintiff a total of 50% of the net proceeds. The primary theory of the plaintiff for the recovery of an additional 25% of the proceeds is that the method of distribution of the proceeds adopted by the defendant is in violation of defendant's own by-laws and "That because of the lack of agreement or contract between the plaintiff and defendant, your plaintiff states that the above funds were improperly withheld from the participating schools."
A Referee filed a report denying recovery. Plaintiff now appeals from an order of the Superior Court accepting the report of the referee and entering judgment for the defendant Association.
There was, by plaintiff's own admission, no contract between the parties to this action. Plaintiff has demonstrated no theory upon which to base a recovery of 50% of the net proceeds.
Appeal denied.