Cases

The opinion of the court was delivered by Harvey, J.: This is an action for the specific performance of a contract for the exchange of real property. The trial court declined to decree specific performance, but rendered a personal judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendant under a forfeiture clause of the contract. Defendant has appealed and contends that the instru

600 So.2d 1224 (1992) Paul E. COHENS, Petitioner, v. Honorable Thomas ELWELL, Circuit Judge, Respondent. No. 91-2644. District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District. June 9, 1992. Steven Scheck, Gainesville, for petitioner. Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Edward C. Hill, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent. PER CURIAM. Paul E. Cohe

ERVIN, Judge. The State appeals from an order granting Defendant Derrick Allen’s motion to dismiss with prejudice the first degree murder, felony child abuse and first degree statutory sex offense charges that had been lodged against him. On appeal, the State contends that the trial court erred by: (1) making certain findings of fact which lacked adequate evidentiary support; (2) concluding that Defendant’s constitutional rig

380 A.2d 1016 (1977) STATE of Maine v. Terry Lee ELWELL and Walter E. Arsenault, Jr. Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. December 9, 1977. *1017 Frank F. Harding, Dist. Atty., Thomas A. Berry (orally), Asst. Dist. Atty., John Bass II, Law Student, Bath, for plaintiff. Therriault & Golin by Roger S. Golin (orally), Roger Therriault, Bath,

This case comes up on exceptions from the Bennington municipal court. It is an action of replevin for the carcass of a buck deer. The writ directed the officer serving the same to replevy the property and to deliver it to the plaintiff "provided he gives a bond in a penal sum which shall be total the appraised value of said carcass, with sufficient surety or sureties to prosecute his replevin, etc." The writ was served, the carcass replevied, and the officer took a bond for double the value,

C. Allen, J. The assurances contained in the two latest letters were conditional, and there was no evidence of the defendant’s ability to pay. Randidge v. Lyman, 124 Mass. 361. The plaintiff, however, places his reliance on the letter of August 18, 1878, which contained the following: “I shall pay you all and the interest, but you will have to give me time.” We *104

By the Court, Allen, J. The cause is properly before us for review upon the appeal from the judgment. The plaintiffs disregarded the order of the judge at the circuit giving the defendants leave to make a case and directing the motion for a new trial thereon to be heard in the first instance at the general term, and perfected their judgment. If this was irregular it was merely an irregularity, and all o

W. Allen, J. The jury found that the hay and cider were produced by the plaintiffs from the farm while they carried it on as executors, under an arrangement with the devisee that they should carry it on and take the proceeds and account for them as assets. Income of the real estate of a testator so received by his executor is assets of his estate. Pub. Sts. a. 144, § 5. Stearns v. Stearns, 1 Pick. 157.

Hoffman, J.— The evidence of the defendant must be treated as entitled to credit, and it proves the case of a condition affixed to the agreement to purchase the note; of a positive false representation by Mills, that the fact had occurred upon which the condition rested, and the purchase was to be made; and of the consummation of the bargain upon the faith of that unequivocal representation. Whether Mills knew

The opinion of the Court was prepared by Shepley J. This is a petition to obtain a review of the judgment and proceedings on a petition for partition. The respondent entered a petition for partition at the August term of the district court, in the year 1844, against persons unknown. Notice was ordered, and Samuel Duncan only appeared as a respondent at the term of that court holden in February, 1845. That court

163 A.2d 342 (1960) STATE of Maine, by Information of Frank E. HANCOCK, Attorney General, on Relation of Carol C. BANKS, et al. v. Eben ELWELL et al. Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. June 24, 1960. *343 Harmon & Nichols, Camden, for relators. Eaton & Glass, Belfast, for respondents. Before WILLIAMSON, C. J., and WEBBER, TAPL

By the Court—Woodruff, J. The defense set up in this action embraces four grounds upon which the. defendant insists that he is not liable upon the check in controversy, which, though not separately stated as distinct defenses, as required by section 150 of the Code, are found in facts which are averred in the answer. 1st. That the check was obtained from the defendant by representations made to him by the plain

Dewey, J. Every indictment must set forth in a proper manner the time of the alleged offence. If it be the ordinary case of a single act done, it must be alleged to have been committed on some one day particularly named, and this is deemed essential, though in such case it would be no variance to prove the act to have been done on some other day. But where the offence charged implies, from its very nature, a" succession or contin

Shaw, C. J.* The court are all of opinion that an action on this bond cannot be maintained in the name of the inhabitants of Northampton. The whole legal title to maintain the action consists in the deed by which the defendant has bound himself to the Commonwealth. The right of action on a sealed instrument belongs to the party having the legal interest. This is now well settled. Sanders v. Fi

The opinion of the Court, after a continuance, was drawn up by Weston C. J. Whether the trustee shall be charged or not, depends upon the question, whether the schooner Adventure is or is not to be considered as goods or effects of the principal in his hands, at the time of the service upon him of the process of foreign attachment. The vessel, then at sea, had been previous to that time regularly assig

552 N.E.2d 488 (1990) CITY OF ALEXANDRIA, Appellant (Defendant below), v. Ermal ALLEN, Jr., Appellee (Plaintiff below). No. 48A02-8804-CV-153. Court of Appeals of Indiana, Second District. March 27, 1990. Rehearing Denied April 23, 1990. *490 Peter G. Tamulonis, Donald L. Dawson, John B. Drummy, Thomas B. Blackwe

Williams, J. This is an action of tort for personal injuries incurred by the plaintiff on August 23, 1945, by falling on a sidewalk of Canal Street, a public way in the town of Athol, at a place where a driveway leads westerly across -the sidewalk along the northerly side and to the rear of the N. D. Cass Company factory. The jury having returned a verdict for the plaintiff, the case is here on the exception of the defendant to th

235 A.2d 529 (1967) STATE of Maine v. Charles Rodney ALLEN. Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. November 22, 1967. Warren E. Winslow, Asst. County Atty., Portland, for appellant. Franklin F. Stearns, Jr., Portland, for appellee. Before WILLIAMSON, C. J., and WEBBER, TAPLEY, MARDEN, DUFRESNE and WEATHERBEE, JJ. MARDEN, Justice. On appeal from revocation of pr

Devens, J. 1. The inquiry which the tenant presents, alike by his exception to the admission of evidence that Mark Hinckley held the place adversely to the tenant, and by his request for the ruling which was refused, is whether, when two persons, one of whom is entitled to a conveyance of real estate, cause such conveyance to be made to the other in order that thereby the creditors of the former may be defrauded, a title by adve

Gray, C. J. A tenant holding over after the expiration of his tenancy is a mere tenant at sufferance, having no right of possession against his landlord. If the landlord forcibly enters and expels him, the landlord may be indicted for the forcible entry. But he is not liable to an action of tort for damages, either for his entry upon the premises, or for an assault in expelling the tenant, provided he uses no more force than is n