Case law

The Harriet

11 F. Cas. 588 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine · May 15, 1840

Penal statutes are to be construed strictly; and cases within the like mischief are not to be drawn within a clause, imposing a prohibition or a forfeiture, unless the words clearly comprehend the case. … It is to the actual facts, that the law looks, and not to any average or apportionment, not established by these facts.

Crocker v. Lewis

6 F. Cas. 831 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine · Oct 15, 1837

The second respects the rejection of the letter of the same witness, which, it is supposed, had a *834 .tendency to qualify the statements in the deposition. … For any other purposes, or to establish any other independent facts, it would not be admissible, as it would ^e mere hearsay, and not under oath.

United States v. Holmes

26 F. Cas. 349 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine · Sep 15, 1858

Tested by this rule, it is clear that the opinion of this witness was not admissible, as he was in no proper sense qualified to speak upon the subject of diseases of the mind. 1 Greenl. Ev. § 440. … This statement had been given by the second mate, in his examination in chief, as a part of the res gestee, and as such was clearly admissible, as substantive testimony.

Gordon v. Lewis

10 F. Cas. 807 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine · May 15, 1835

Now, it might be a sufficient answer to this suggestion, that the master reports, that the plaintiff denied any such indebtment, and no proof was offered before him to establish the fact clearly; therefore, the suggestion … At that time, and from thence down to January, 1832, when John Gordon conveyed the mortgaged estate to the plaintiff, he continued the qualified owner thereof, under his original mortgage deed from Webb, in April, 1812; and

Pierce v. Strickland

19 F. Cas. 638 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine · May 15, 1842

Richardson, 8 Term R. 505, qualifies the doctrine, and establishes, that it does not exempt the officer from any other consequences resulting from his own default. … The cases cited at the bar in behalf of the defendant, clearly establish this point.

Wells v. Maine Steamship Co.

29 F. Cas. 669 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine · Apr 15, 1874

Clearly, it was decided in that case, that goods seized by a sheriff under an attachment, are in the custody of the law; that where goods are attached in the hands of a common carrier, to whom the goods have been delivered … Qualified as stated, the rule finds abundant support in the aforementioned eases, and the broader rule, as laid down by the supreme court in the case of Stiles v.

Hale v. Coffin

114 F. 567 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine · Mar 5, 1902

Locke duly qualified as executor thereof on April 16, 1895, and promptly gave proper notice of his appointment. … It is clearly the intention that the “assets” in the hand's of the executor or administrator shall always remain liable, wherever they may be found.

Spring v. Gray

22 F. Cas. 978 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine · Oct 15, 1830

The language of the statute is “accounts” generally, without any qualifying adjunct. But it has been held from the earliest times, that the exception does not apply to stated accounts. It was so decided in Webber v. … That the exception applied only to the trade of merchandise was clearly the opinion of Lord Hardwicke, in Sturt v.

Whitehouse v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co.

29 F. Cas. 1033 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine · Nov 15, 1877

If a locomotive is at hand ready to move, whoso well qualified to judge of the propriety of receiving such persons upon the engine as its engineer? … S.] 664, the supreme court says: “That although the facts are undisputed, it is for the jury and not the judge to determine whether proper care was given, or whether they establish negligence.”

Carr v. Gale

5 F. Cas. 118 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine · Oct 15, 1847

The solution of this question involves the consideration of his rights and immunities as a bankrupt. … And tlie court will sometimes infer this want of due attention on the part of the jury, when the verdict is-clearly against the weight of evidence.

Veazie v. Williams

28 F. Cas. 1124 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine · May 15, 1845

It must be admitted, however, that the doctrine of Lord Mansfield has, to a certain extent, been qualified by subsequent decisions of the English courts. … I am not aware, although the decisions of our courts may not be in very exact harmony, that a different doctrine has been established in this country.