Fortin v. Wilensky, 142 Me. 372 (1947)
- Citation
- Fortin v. Wilensky, 142 Me. 372 (1947)
- Parent Document
- Fortin v. Wilensky, 142 Me. 372 (1947)
- Jurisdiction
- Maine (state)
- Effective Date
- 1947-05-19
Other Sections in This Document (22)
- Fortin v. Wilensky, 142 Me. 372 (1947)
- Fortin v. Wilensky, 142 Me. 372 (1947)
- Fortin v. Wilensky, 142 Me. 372 (1947)
- Fortin v. Wilensky, 142 Me. 372 (1947)
- Fortin v. Wilensky, 142 Me. 372 (1947)
- Fortin v. Wilensky, 142 Me. 372 (1947)
- Fortin v. Wilensky, 142 Me. 372 (1947)
- Fortin v. Wilensky, 142 Me. 372 (1947)
- Fortin v. Wilensky, 142 Me. 372 (1947)
- Fortin v. Wilensky, 142 Me. 372 (1947)
- Fortin v. Wilensky, 142 Me. 372 (1947)
- Fortin v. Wilensky, 142 Me. 372 (1947)
- Fortin v. Wilensky, 142 Me. 372 (1947)
- Fortin v. Wilensky, 142 Me. 372 (1947)
- Fortin v. Wilensky, 142 Me. 372 (1947)
- Fortin v. Wilensky, 142 Me. 372 (1947)
- Fortin v. Wilensky, 142 Me. 372 (1947)
- Fortin v. Wilensky, 142 Me. 372 (1947)
- Fortin v. Wilensky, 142 Me. 372 (1947)
- Fortin v. Wilensky, 142 Me. 372 (1947)
- Fortin v. Wilensky, 142 Me. 372 (1947)
- Fortin v. Wilensky, 142 Me. 372 (1947)
Full Text
332 charsThe bill alleges that, in addition to the payment by the plaintiffs of an increase in rent, there was an expansion of business “in reliance upon the promises of the defendant,” but there is no evidence to support such a contention. The plaintiffs were already in possession of the premises and there was no change of business shown.