Small v. Benfield
This text of 20 A. 284 (Small v. Benfield) 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.
Opinion
The plaintiff has a direct remedy for the error in the taxation of costs. Bedel v. Goodall, 26 N. H. 92; Chamberlain v. Sterling, 26 N. H. 115; McIntire v. Carr, 59 N. H. 207 ; Abbot v. Renaud, 64 N. H. 89; Bean v. Savings Bank, 64 N. H. 350. The judgment, though erroneous, is not void. It cannot be impeached collaterally, and, until it is reversed or set aside, justifies all acts done under its authority. Fowler v. Brooks, 64 N. H. 423, and cases cited; Carr v. Sterling, 114 N. Y. 558.
The defendant is not responsible for the officer’s demand and receipt of illegal fees. He had no control over, interest in, or (so far as appears) knowledge of the officer’s charges, and gave no directions in regard to them. In making them the officer was not his agent, and is alone answerable for their legality. G. L;, c. 290, s. 27; Burnham v. Aiken, 6 N. H. 306, 323; Odiorne v. Mason, 9 N. H. 24, 30; Wells v. Burbank, 17 N. H. 393, 407; Avery v. Bowman, 40 N. H. 453, 457.
Judgment for the defendant.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
20 A. 284, 66 N.H. 206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/small-v-benfield-nh-1890.