Eastman v. Coos Bank
Superior Court of New Hampshire
THIS was an action of assumpsit-. The declaration contained two counts, one for two hundred fifty three dollars seventy nine cents, money paid, laid out and expended : the other, on an account annexed, amounting to the same sum. The items in the account were for the service of two writs by the plaintiff, as a deputy sheriff, in favor of the defendant, storage of a large quantity of property attached, and for making a schedule of said property in the return on said writs.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of assumpsit-. The declaration contained two counts, one for two hundred fifty three dollars seventy nine cents, money paid, laid out and expended : the other, on an account annexed, amounting to the same sum. The items in the account were for the service of two writs by the plaintiff, as a deputy sheriff, in favor of the defendant, storage of a large quantity of property attached, and for making a schedule of said property in the return on said writs. The cause was tried here at the last term on the general issue, when the plaintiff proved the service of the writs, and…
1Opinion of the CourtWoodbury, J.
The objections to the verdict in this case resolve themselves into the four following :
1st. That the defendants, being a corporation, the deposition of Stimpson, not having been taken by agreement or under a dedimus, was inadmissible.
2d. That no competent evidence was introduced, to show that the defendants authorized Crane to employ the plaintiff.
3d. That the attorney alone in those suits was liable for the officer’s fees.
4th. That the verdict embraces some inadmissible items of the account annexed, and interest improperly allowed.
The practice, which has prevailed in some counties of this…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Adams v. HopkinsNew York Supreme Court · 1810
- Jackson ex dem. Smith v. StewarthNew York Supreme Court · 1810
- Danforth v. President of the Schoharie & Duanesburgh Turnpike RoadNew York Supreme Court · 1815
- Ousterhout v. DayNew York Supreme Court · 1812
- Boswell v. DingleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1808
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Waldron v. TuttleSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1827
- Maine Stage Co. v. LongleySupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1837
- Sleeper v. WeymouthSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1852
- State v. New-BostonSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1840
- Burnham v. President of the Savings BankSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1831