Elwell v. Roper
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Probate Appeal. The case is the same reported ante, p. 254. Trial by jury and A^erdict for the plaintiff. Transferred from the January term, 1904, of the superior court by Peaslee, J., upon tire defendants’ exceptions.
1Opinion of the CourtChase, J.
1. The alleged promise of the testatrix was that the plaintiff should be fully paid in the end for the extra services. The price for these services was not agreed upon. In sucli case the law implies that the promisor shall pay what the services are reasonably worth. The plaintiff’s specification sufficiently sets forth the contract. This point was covered by the former decision, as also was that relating to the statute of limitations. Elwell v. Roper, ante, p. 254.
2. The evidence offered by the defendants, — that after the plaintiff left the employ of the testatrix, the latter said she…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Walker v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1902
- Lane v. HillSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1895
- Baldwin v. WentworthSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1892
- Pitman v. MauranSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1897
- Richardson v. WeareSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1882
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Bennett v. LaroseSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1926
- Piper v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1909
- Putnam v. BowmanSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1937
- Bridges v. Great Falls Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1931
- Farnham v. AndersonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1907
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.