Cole v. Colburn

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Cole v. Colburn

61 N.H. 499

DecidedDecember 5, 1881

StatusPublished

This text of 61 N.H. 499 (Cole v. Colburn) 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

Cole v. Colburn, 61 N.H. 499 (N.H. 1881).

Pincite

Opinion

Doe, C. J.

Damages are recouped to avoid a useless multiplication of suits; and a sound rule of set-off cannot be constructed upon the mere form of action. Two suits between these parties are not necessary for balancing the equal damages accruing from the single contract of exchange, and duly set forth in pleading. _ The defendant’s judgment for costs will conclude the controversy by a clause of recoupment.

Judgment for the defendant.

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

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

Doe, C. J.

Damages are recouped to avoid a useless multiplication of suits; and a sound rule of set-off cannot be constructed upon the mere form of action. Two suits between these parties are not necessary for balancing the equal damages accruing from the single contract of exchange, and duly set forth in pleading. _ The defendant’s judgment for costs will conclude the controversy by a clause of recoupment.

Judgment for the defendant.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 N.H. 499, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cole-v-colburn-nh-1881.