History
  • No items yet
midpage
G. A. Close Co. v. Blackwell
124 Me. 429
Me.
1924
Check Treatment

This cause was heard by a single Justice without jury. One of the defendants was defaulted and the other appeared and contested his liability on the *430ground that no partnership existed between himself and the other defendant in connection with the enterprise where the work was rendered for which this suit was brought.

Ralph M. Ingalls, for plaintiff. Maurice E. Rosen, for defendants.

The finding of the sitting Justice'is as follows: “After a careful consideration of the evidence I find that such partnership existed, or if it did not exist, the defendant D is estopped to' deny its existence. I, therefore give judgment for the plaintiff for the amount of the bill and interest from the date of the writ.”

It is elementary law that the decision of the presiding Justice on questions of fact submitted to him is conclusive, and exceptions do not lie to his findings unless the only inference to be drawn from the evidence is a contrary one. An examination of the evidence in this case convinces us of the correctness of the findings of the sitting Justice in the case at bar, and the mandate must be, Exceptions overruled.

Case Details

Case Name: G. A. Close Co. v. Blackwell
Court Name: Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Date Published: Jul 12, 1924
Citation: 124 Me. 429
Court Abbreviation: Me.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.