Kelsea v. Manchester

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Kelsea v. Manchester

15 A. 206, 64 N.H. 570

CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire

DecidedJune 5, 1888

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 15 A. 206 (Kelsea v. Manchester) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A. 206, 64 N.H. 570, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kelsea-v-manchester-nh-1888.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack