Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

92 Me. 389

Morrill v. Buker

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided January 11, 1899

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · decided 1899-01-11

On Exceptions by Defendant. This was a writ in error, wherein the plaintiffs ought to annul a scire facias judgment obtained by the defendant against the plaintiff in the Lewiston Municipal Court. The case was heard before the presiding justice at the April term, 1898. The presiding justice ruled that no errors appear of record as alleged in the writ, and ordered the writ dismissed with single costs, and judgment of the court below affirmed.

Decided 1899-01-11

Haskell, J.

¶1Error to a judgment of the Lewiston Municipal Court. The presiding justice ruled that “no errors appear of record as alleged in the writ.” He might well so rule, for no complete record was produced, only fragments of one. These “ do not necessarily show error, hence the writ of error should be dis*392missed.” Atkinson v. Bank, 85 Maine, 368 ; Lewiston Steam Mill Co. v. Merrill, 78 Maine, 107; Tyler v. Erskine, 78 Maine, 91.

¶2As a sequence to the above ruling, the presiding justice ordered the writ of error dismissed with single costs. ' That was a matter of discretion with him. It was analagous to a nonsuit. The pleadings were inartificial and irregular. No issue seems to have been tendered or joined. The order disposed of the case and is not erroneous. It seems to be appropriate, too, for the want of information upon the merits.

¶3The presiding justice also ordered the judgment below affirmed. This is a non sequitur and unauthorized. A writ of error, in our practice, stands by itself like any other common law action. It is not an appeal that brings into the appellate court the original action, so that if the appeal, that is the plaintiff’s contention, be dismissed, the decree or judgment below remains to be affirmed, for the whole action has been brought up by the appeal when properly taken; when not properly taken, the action has not been brought up and the decree or judgment below cannot be affirmed because not razed by the appeal. To be sure, judgment may be given for either party; but judgment contemplates the retention of the writ as a foundation therefor. Where the writ be dismissed, no other judgment follows. Indeed, the court thereby refuses judgment upon the merits of the action. It refuses to find any other fact than that plaintiff is not rectus in curia.

¶4The order, therefore, affirming the judgment was error, and to this plaintiff’s exceptions must be sustained, leaving the writ dismissed with costs and the judgment sought to be reversed untouched.

¶5Exceptions sustained to order affirming judgment below, otherwise overruled.

/92/me/389 · .json · Public domain