Doyle v. Doyle

56 N.H. 567, 1876 N.H. LEXIS 182
Supreme Court of New Hampshire·Decided March 21, 1876·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinions

CHESHIRE COUNTY. It is objected that this case was improperly sent to an auditor because there were no accounts to be investigated or vouchers to be examined. I do not see any evidence of any vouchers in the case, but the specification and set-off were clearly accounts. I do not understand that the statute requires that there should be books of account to investigate. I suppose that whenever there have been money *Page 569 transactions or dealings, any writing on which the items of those dealings are specified is an account, and that any examination of the merits and correctness of such an account is an investigation of accounts. My recollection of the practice at nisi prius is, that when the plaintiff's specification or the defendant's set-off is such an account, either would bring the case within the rule. I think here was plainly to be had an investigation of accounts; and the exception must be overruled.

The constitutionality of the statute relating to auditors was affirmed in Perkins v. Scott, post, decided at this term.

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

Doyle v. Doyle, 56 N.H. 567, 1876 N.H. LEXIS 182 (N.H. 1876).

56 N.H. 567 (Doyle v. Doyle) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Howe v. Day
58 N.H. 516 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1879)
Perkins v. Scott
57 N.H. 55 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1876)