Merrill v. Perkins

59 N.H. 343
Supreme Court of New Hampshire·Decided December 5, 1879·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

Doe, C. J.

The objection to the form of action might have been obviated at the trial by an amendment of the declaration, add *345 ing a new count in trespass. Stebbins v. L. Ins. Co., 59 N. H. 143. And as the amendment, if made before the trial, would not have affected the trial or the verdict, it may be made now without disturbing the verdict. Roulo v. Valcour, 58 N. H. 347. It does not appear to be necessary to inquire whether case, or trespass, is the right form of action.

The question put to the plaintiff’s husband was asked for the purpose of disparaging his credibility. How far justice required the cross-examination should be allowed to go in that direction was a question of fact to be determined at the trial term. Gutterson v. Morse, 58 N. H. 165. When the amendment is made, there-will be

Judgment on the verdict.

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

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

Merrill v. Perkins, 59 N.H. 343 (N.H. 1879).

59 N.H. 343 (Merrill v. Perkins) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Milne v. Burlington Homes, Inc.
379 A.2d 198 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1977)
Perkins v. Roberge
39 A. 583 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1897)
Lesser v. New Hampshire Furniture Co.
44 A. 490 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1895)
Hayes v. Colby
18 A. 251 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1889)
Owen v. Weston
4 A. 801 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1885)
Peaslee v. Dudley
63 N.H. 220 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1884)
Cocheco Aqueduct Ass'n v. Boston & Maine R. R.
62 N.H. 345 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1882)
Merrill v. Woodbury
61 N.H. 504 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1881)
Elsher v. Hughes
60 N.H. 469 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1881)
Rutherford v. Whitcher
60 N.H. 110 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1880)