Gagnon v. Connor
This text of 9 A. 631 (Gagnon v. Connor) 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.
Opinion
In Brigham v. Este, 2 Pick. 420, the writ was abated because it contained no declaration. The law allows an insufficient declaration to be amended for the purpose of curing a defective statement of the cause of action. In a suit seasonably brought, the declaration may be amended after the time when a new action for the same cause would be barred by the statute of limitations. Merchants’ Bank v. Stevenson, 7 Allen 489, 490. In that case, and in Wiley v. Yale, 1 Met. 553, 555, an amendment was denied on the ground that as a matter of fact justice did not require it. In this ease, the question of fact whether justice required the amendment, and the question of fact raised by the motion to set aside the verdict on the ground of excessive damages, were determinable at the trial term, and no error of law appears. Merrill v. Perkins, 61 N. H. 262.
Judgment on the verdict.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
9 A. 631, 64 N.H. 276, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gagnon-v-connor-nh-1886.