Cocheco Aqueduct Ass'n v. Boston & Maine R. R.

62 N.H. 345
CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire
DecidedDecember 5, 1882
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 62 N.H. 345 (Cocheco Aqueduct Ass'n v. Boston & Maine R. R.) 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.

Bluebook
Cocheco Aqueduct Ass'n v. Boston & Maine R. R., 62 N.H. 345 (N.H. 1882).

Opinion

Dob, C. J.

The amendment may be allowed if justice requires it (Merrill v. Perkins, 59 N. H. 343, Elsher v. Hughes, 60 N. H. 469); and the question of justice, so far as it is a question of fact, is determinable at the trial term. Garvin v. Legery, 61 N. H. 153. It does not appear that an amendment will be useful. Whatever the form of action, the question will arise at a new trial whether there is evidence of any other wrong than a breach of contract on which no action can be maintained.

Case discharged.

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

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

Related

Morgan v. Joyce
30 A. 1119 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1891)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
62 N.H. 345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cocheco-aqueduct-assn-v-boston-maine-r-r-nh-1882.