Mt. Washington Hotel Co. v. Redington

55 N.H. 386, 1875 N.H. LEXIS 92
Supreme Court of New Hampshire·Decided March 12, 1875·Published

Opinions

The questions that arise on motions to amend are often very nice. By rule 16, "No new count or amendment of a declaration shall be allowed without the consent of the defendant, unless it be consistent with the original declaration, and for the same cause of action." I have seen no authority which appears to me to go so far as it would be necessary to go in order to hold that the cause of action described in either of the proposed special counts was identical with a cause of action for goods sold and delivered; and it therefore appears that the motion ought to be denied.

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

Mt. Washington Hotel Co. v. Redington, 55 N.H. 386, 1875 N.H. LEXIS 92 (N.H. 1875).

55 N.H. 386 (Mt. Washington Hotel Co. v. Redington) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Keyser v. District Number 8
35 N.H. 477 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1857)
Wood v. Folsom
42 N.H. 70 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1860)
Pinkerton v. Manchester & Lawrence Railroad
42 N.H. 424 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1861)
Wiggin v. Veasey
43 N.H. 313 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1861)
Bailey v. Smith
43 N.H. 409 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1861)
Burt v. Kinne
47 N.H. 361 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1867)
Whittemore v. Gibbs
24 N.H. 484 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1852)