History
  • No items yet
midpage
Small v. Sacramento Navigation & Mining Co.
40 Me. 274
Me.
1885
Check Treatment
Rice, J.

This action is based upon an order purporting to be drawn by one E. F. Jacobs, upon the directors of the Sacramento Navigation and Mining Company, in favor of the plaintiff, and accepted by six persons, whose names appear upon said order, as directors of said company. The execution of this paper was denied by the defendants. Proof was offered of the handwriting of the drawer and of five of the persons by whom it was accepted. As to the handwriting’ of the other acceptor there was no proof; nor was there any proof, that any of the persons, by whom said order was accepted, were directors of said company. This paper was properly excluded by the Court. The paper testified to by Mr. Freeman, was also properly excluded. It was not identified as a paper belonging to the defendants.

As to the depositions referred to in this case, which were excluded, we cannot speak as no copies have been furnished. It is the duty of the party who complains that evidence offered by him has been erroneously excluded, to present such evidence for the consideration of the Court. If he fails to do so, the presumption arises, that he has no just cause for complaint.

. So far as appears from the case, or the papers which have *276come to our hands, the'rulings of the Judge before,whom it was heard were entirely correct.

The exceptions are therefore overruled.

Case Details

Case Name: Small v. Sacramento Navigation & Mining Co.
Court Name: Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Date Published: Jul 1, 1885
Citation: 40 Me. 274
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.