Burns v. Madigan

60 N.H. 197
Supreme Court of New Hampshire·Decided December 5, 1880·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

AubUN, J.

Without a contract, express or to be inferred, the plaintiff cannot recover. Kelley v. Davis, 49 N. H. 187, 189; Bundy v. Hyde, 50 N. N. 116; Cook v. Bennett, 51 N. H. 85, 93.

Without the consent of the defendant, the plaintiff could not be permitted to testify, except upon matters to which the testatrix, if living, could not testify. Chandler v. Davis, 47 N. H. 462; Harvey v. Hilliard, 47 N. H. 551; Fosgate v. Thompson, 54 N. H. 455; Hoit v. Russell, 56 N. H. 559. It does not appear that the plaintiff offered to testify to matters arising subsequent to the death of the testatrix; and no injustice appearing to be done wdthout the plaintiff’s testimony, there was no error in its exclusion.

Judgment on the report for the defendant.

Clark, J.. did not sit: the others concurred.

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

Burns v. Madigan, 60 N.H. 197 (N.H. 1880).

60 N.H. 197 (Burns v. Madigan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

McConnell v. Lamontagne
134 A. 718 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1926)
Parsons v. Wentworth
59 A. 623 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1904)
Ingalls v. Burlingame
51 A. 175 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1901)
Plymouth v. Haverhill
46 A. 460 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1898)