Elsher v. Hughes

60 N.H. 469
Supreme Court of New Hampshire·Decided June 5, 1881·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Doe, C. J.

The plaintiff is entitled to damages for the defendant’s use and occupation of the plaintiff’s store. The measure of -damages given to the jury was the same as would have been given in assumpsit. Whether, upon the evidence in the case, the value of the occupation should be recovered in trespass or assumpsit, is .an unnecessary question. Merrill v. Perkins, 59 N. H. 343. When the plaintiff amends the declaration by adding a common count in assumpsit, there will be

Judgment on the verdict.

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

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

Elsher v. Hughes, 60 N.H. 469 (N.H. 1881).

60 N.H. 469 (Elsher v. Hughes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sanborn v. Boston & Maine Railroad
79 A. 642 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1911)
Owen v. Weston
4 A. 801 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1885)
Cocheco Aqueduct Ass'n v. Boston & Maine R. R.
62 N.H. 345 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1882)
Merrill v. Woodbury
61 N.H. 504 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1881)