Peaslee v. Dudley

63 N.H. 220
Supreme Court of New Hampshire·Decided June 5, 1884·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Carpenter, J.

The question presented is of no practical importance. Time spent in considering it would be wasted. If upon examination it should be found that the action in its present form cannot be maintained, the plaintiff would be permitted to amend by filing r count in assumpsit. The facts upon which the rights *221 of the parties depend having been fully tried and determined, there is no occasion for a further trial. The plaintiff may amend by adding a count for money paid (McDuffee v. Railroad, 52 N. H. 459, Buckminster v. Wright, 59 N. H. 153, and Merrill v. Perkins, 59 N. H. 343), and thereupon there will be

Judgment for the plaintiff.

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

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

Peaslee v. Dudley, 63 N.H. 220 (N.H. 1884).

63 N.H. 220 (Peaslee v. Dudley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dufton v. Mechanicks National Bank
62 A.2d 715 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1948)
Wilson v. McCarroll
120 A. 86 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1923)
Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Cameron
87 A. 254 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1913)
Prentiss v. New England Box Co.
75 A. 984 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1910)
Morse v. Glover
40 A. 396 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1894)
Hayes v. Colby
18 A. 251 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1889)
Winnipiseogee Paper Co. v. Eaton
9 A. 221 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1886)
Owen v. Weston
4 A. 801 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1885)