Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

68 Me. 416

Holmes v. Brooks

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided September 14, 1878

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · decided 1878-09-14

ON EXCEPTIONS from the superior court. Assumpsit on this note: “$1,289.63. For value received we promise to pay John Tenney, or order, twelve hundred eighty-nine dollars sixty-three cents on demand, with interest annually. Portland, Maine, May 26th, 1868.

Decided 1878-09-14

Aprlbtok, C. J.

¶1This is an action upon a promissory note, given by the firm of O. M. & E. P. Brooks to the plaintiff’s intestate. It is brought against the defendant as surviving partner. The defendant, as such partner, gave the bond required by It. S., c. 69, § 2.

¶2The judge of the superior court ruled that the defendant was not competent as a witness generally, as to facts happening before the decease of the plaintiff’s intestate, the plaintiff not having testified thereto. The defendant excepted to this ruling, on the ground that, as a party, he was the “legal representative of a deceased person,” to wit, his partner, and, as such, was entitled to testify to facts happening before his decease, within the provisions of N. S., c. 82, § 87, and c. 145 of the acts of 1873.

¶3The ruling was correct. The defendant is sued in his own *418name. He represents only himself. The judgment is against him as an individual, and not against him in any representative capacity. He is not the representative of a deceased person, and can claim no rights as such.

¶4The plaintiff was appointed administrator in Maine on the estate of John Tenney, of Water bury, Vermont, on September 4, 1877, and commenced this suit January 16, 1878. It is brought within two years after his appointment, and is not barred by R. S., e. 81, § 88.

¶5Exceptions overruled.

WaltoN, Barrows, Virgin and Libbey, JJ., concurred.
/68/me/416 · .json · Public domain