Kelsea v. Manchester

15 A. 206, 64 N.H. 570
Supreme Court of New Hampshire·Decided June 5, 1888·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

BINGHAM, J.

The petitioner was not learned in the law, and employed counsel to manage his cause who omitted to file a claim for damages with the aldermen because be did not know that c. 65, Laws, 1885, required such claim to be filed with any other person than the city clerk. The plaintiff’s ignorance of the law was due to no neglect or fault of his, but, being unlearned, he used ordinary care and prudence in employing counsel to file the claim. The case comes within the rule in Bolles v. Dalton, 59 N. H. 479.

Exception overruled.

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

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

Kelsea v. Manchester, 15 A. 206, 64 N.H. 570 (N.H. 1888).

15 A. 206 (Kelsea v. Manchester) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Simoneau v. Town of Enfield
293 A.2d 317 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1972)
Dame v. Wood
66 A. 484 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1907)
Boyd v. Derry
38 A. 1005 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1895)
Harvey v. Northwood
19 A. 653 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1889)