Howe v. Day

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Howe v. Day

58 N.H. 516

CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire

DecidedMarch 5, 1879

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 58 N.H. 516 (Howe v. Day) 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

Howe v. Day, 58 N.H. 516 (N.H. 1879).

Pincite

Opinion

Allen, J.

The items of the specification made an investigation of accounts necessary. The action was properly sent to an auditor, and *517 the auditor’s report was evidence for a jury. Doyle v. Doyle, 56 N. H. 567.

No action at law could be maintained on the special contract to convey land, which was notin writing and was within the statute of frauds; but the plaintiff was entitled to recover for the money expended, and what the labor and services performed under the contract were reasonably worth. Ham v. Goodrich, 87 N. H. 185.

Judgment on the verdict.

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

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

Allen, J.

The items of the specification made an investigation of accounts necessary. The action was properly sent to an auditor, and *517 the auditor’s report was evidence for a jury. Doyle v. Doyle, 56 N. H. 567.

No action at law could be maintained on the special contract to convey land, which was notin writing and was within the statute of frauds; but the plaintiff was entitled to recover for the money expended, and what the labor and services performed under the contract were reasonably worth. Ham v. Goodrich, 87 N. H. 185.

Judgment on the verdict.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 N.H. 516, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howe-v-day-nh-1879.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack