Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

78 Me. 336

Trask v. Wadsworth

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided June 25, 1886

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · decided 1886-06-25

ON EXCEPTIONS. At the trial after the plaintiff’s testimony was out, the court, on motion of the defendant, ordered a nonsuit. To this ruling the plaintiff alleged exceptions. The opinion states the case and material facts. contended that this action was maintainable under E. S., c. 81, § 83, which gives a four years’ limitation.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1886-06-25

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently February 1995

2 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

20188618901900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Daneorth, J.

¶1This is an action against the sheriff of Waldo county for the alleged false imprisonment of the plaintiff, by the act of his deputy. The suit was commenced more than two years after the act complained of, and the defendant pleads the statute of limitations.

¶2E. S., c. 81, § 83, provides that "actions against a sheriff for the negligence or misconduct of himself, or his deputies, shall be commenced within four years after the cause of action accrues.” Section 84 of the same chapter provides' that "actions for false imprisonment . . shall be commenced within two years after the cause of action accrues.” The former section is general in its terms, the latter specific, and must, when applicable, be construed as an exception to the first; otherwise the two can not stand together. The present action comes distinctly and *337clearly within the provisions of § 84. If it were directly against the deputy, there can be no doubt the two years’ limitation would apply. The deputy is still the responsible party and he can not be made liable indirectly when he is not directly. The time in which the action would be barred can not be increased by this indirection in the remedy sought.

¶3This same question, under a like statute, has been before the court in Massachusetts, and in a satisfactory opinion the same result has been reached. Sibley v. Estabrook, 4 Gray, 295.

¶4Exceptions overruled.

Peters, C. J., WaltoN, Emery, Foster and Haskell, JJ., concurred.
/78/me/336 · .json · Public domain