Felker v. Chesley

29 A. 540, 66 N.H. 381
Supreme Court of New Hampshire·Decided December 5, 1890·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Smith, J.

The defendant’s duty is not an open question. The arithmetical error could have been corrected by the moderator in a supplementary public declaration before the close of the meeting, but could not be corrected by the clerk in his record and return without such correctional action taken by the moderator. Bell v. Pike, 53 N. H. 473, 481; Opinion of the Justices, 53 N. H. 640, 643; Hill v. Goodwin, 56 N. H. 441.

Petition granted.

Doe, C. J., and Bingham, J., did not sit: the others concurred.

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

Felker v. Chesley, 29 A. 540, 66 N.H. 381 (N.H. 1890).

29 A. 540 (Felker v. Chesley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Augé v. Variol
31 La. 865 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1879)