Pillsbury v. Cammett
2 N.H. 283
Opinion
This is an action of assumpsit against two defendants, upon a joint contract, and it is a general rule, to which this case seems to form no exception, that in such a case, judgment cannot be given against one defendant with[284] out the other, 1 Chitt. Pl. 31.—1 East 48, Sheriff et al. vs. Wilks.
The verdict in favor of Cammett has placed the plaintiff in ⅛ srnaiion, in which lie cannot avail himself of Jidsmb default. Js'chon, was, therefore, clearly an incompetent witness for CammeU.(l)
The verdict must be set aside, and a mw trial be granted,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Pillsbury v. Cammett, 2 N.H. 283 (N.H. Super. Ct. 1820).
2 N.H. 283 (Pillsbury v. Cammett) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Burt v. Stevens
22 N.H. 229 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1850)
Bowman v. Noyes
12 N.H. 302 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1841)
Blake v. Ladd
10 N.H. 190 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1839)
Bank v. Rix
10 N.H. 201 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1839)
Ames v. Withington
3 N.H. 115 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1824)