Belknap v. Clark

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Belknap v. Clark

58 N.H. 150

Supreme Court of New Hampshire·Decided August 5, 1877·Published

Opinion

Bingham, J.

Belknap county is a body corporate, for the purpose of sueing and being sued. Gen. St., c. 22, s. 1. The plaintiff should have been described as the county of Belknap, and the amendment was properly allowed. Lebanon v. Griffin, 45 N. H. 558, 563; Flanders v. Stewartstown, 47 N. H. 549.

There was no error of law in the order of the court for an additional specification. Benedict v. Swain, 43 N. H. 33; Saunders v. Osgood, 46 N. H. 21.

Assumpsit lies. Wentworth v. Gove, 45 N. H. 160.

Case discharged.

Foster J., did not sit.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bingham, J.

Belknap county is a body corporate, for the purpose of sueing and being sued. Gen. St., c. 22, s. 1. The plaintiff should have been described as the county of Belknap, and the amendment was properly allowed. Lebanon v. Griffin, 45 N. H. 558, 563; Flanders v. Stewartstown, 47 N. H. 549.

There was no error of law in the order of the court for an additional specification. Benedict v. Swain, 43 N. H. 33; Saunders v. Osgood, 46 N. H. 21.

Assumpsit lies. Wentworth v. Gove, 45 N. H. 160.

Case discharged.

Foster J., did not sit.

Belknap v. Clark, 58 N.H. 150 (N.H. 1877).

Pincite

58 N.H. 150 (Belknap v. Clark) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.