known rule in Maine

2019This well known standard was articulated in the seminal case of Tuttle v. Raymond, 494 A.2d 1353 (Me. 1985).

1984Id. at 20 .

1984Id. at 20 .

1954Pinkham v. Jennings, 123 Me. 343 ; Powers v. Mitchell, 75 Me. 364; Cushman Co., et al. v. Macksey et al., 135 Me. 490 and Hutchins v. Hutchins, 136 Me. 513 .

1954Pinkham v. Jennings, 123 Me. 343 ; Powers v. Mitchell, 75 Me. 364; Cushman Co., et al. v. Macksey et al., 135 Me. 490 and Hutchins v. Hutchins, 136 Me. 513 .

1954Pinkham v. Jennings, 123 Me. 343 ; Powers v. Mitchell, 75 Me. 364; Cushman Co., et al. v. Macksey et al., 135 Me. 490 and Hutchins v. Hutchins, 136 Me. 513 .

1954Pinkham v. Jennings, 123 Me. 343 ; Powers v. Mitchell, 75 Me. 364; Cushman Co., et al. v. Macksey et al., 135 Me. 490 and Hutchins v. Hutchins, 136 Me. 513 .

1954In the lengthy opinion in which the facts and the law are thoroughly discussed and analyzed the Commission found that the necessary elements of accident were not present, namely, “unusual, unexpected and sudden event.” In Robitaille’s case 140 Me. 121 the court restated the well known rule of law “That the Commission is made the trier of the facts and its findings thereof whether for or against the claimant are final.” Not only was there competent and credible evidence on which the Commission based its findings but it seems to this court that, on the evidence heard by the Commission, no other

1916In Tomlinson v. Derby, 41 Conn., 268 , a new trial was ordered because one of the jurors sitting on the case assented to a statement made to him outside the jury room, by a person other than a juror, to the effect that if the trial should continue fifteen or twenty days, and the plaintiff should recover five thousand dollars, he would have nothing left after paying the expenses of the suit.

1916In Cooper v. Carr 161 Mich., 405 , also reported in 126 N. W., 468 , it was .stated as a well known rule that where, during the progress of the. trial, and before the submission of the case, a juror has made statements outside the jury room concerning the case, or evidence offered therein, indicating a fixed opinion unfavorable to the moving party, or ill will towards him, it is ground for a new trial.

1916In Cooper v. Carr 161 Mich., 405 , also reported in 126 N. W., 468 , it was .stated as a well known rule that where, during the progress of the. trial, and before the submission of the case, a juror has made statements outside the jury room concerning the case, or evidence offered therein, indicating a fixed opinion unfavorable to the moving party, or ill will towards him, it is ground for a new trial.

1849Judge Parsons, after referring to the statute of 5 William & Mary, c. 3, and that of 1784, c. 24, says, “in consequence of these statute provisions legacies have always been recovered by actions at law, in which the legatee shows the bequest, the probate of the will, the official capacity of the defendant, and his reception of assets, making him liable to pay; of which the probate records are evidence.” Farwell v. Jacobs, 4 Mass. 634 .

1845Larned v. Bruce & al. 6 Mass. R. 57 ; Nels.