Burns v. Madigan
This text of 60 N.H. 197 (Burns v. Madigan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
60 N.H. 197, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burns-v-madigan-nh-1880.