Hitchcock v. Munger
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Debt, qui tam, under the statute against usury. The first count alleged that on the 26th day of February, 1889, one Samuel Richardson made his promissory note to the defendant, for the sum of three hundred dollars, upon which note there were three indorsements, the dates of which were specified in the count, and that afterwards, on the 8th day of April, 1841, Richardson and the defendant made a corrupt agreement, by virtue of which Richardson paid the defendant the sum of…
Read the full summary
Debt, qui tam, under the statute against usury. The first count alleged that on the 26th day of February, 1889, one Samuel Richardson made his promissory note to the defendant, for the sum of three hundred dollars, upon which note there were three indorsements, the dates of which were specified in the count, and that afterwards, on the 8th day of April, 1841, Richardson and the defendant made a corrupt agreement, by virtue of which Richardson paid the defendant the sum of fifteen dollars, for forbearance and giving day of payment of the sum due on the note, over and above the rate of six per…
1Opinion of the CourtGilchrist, J.
Where there are several counts in a declaration, whether the subjects of them be really distinct, or identical, *102they must always purport to be founded on distinct causes of action, and not to refer to the same matter. Stephen on Pleading, (2d Ed.,) 318, 319. This is rendered necessary by the rule against duplicity, the object of which is to ensure the production of a single issue upon the same subject matter in dispute. 1 Ch. Pl. 259. This rule, though evaded as to the declaration, by the use of several counts, is not permitted to be directly violated. Where there are several counts, they are…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Burnham v. WebsterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1809
- Coolidge v. WilliamsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1808
- Ketland v. CassiusSupreme Court of the United States · 1796
- Davis v. SaundersMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1810
- Stilson v. TobeyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1807
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- State v. CorronSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1905