Chase v. Lovering
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Trespass, for taking and driving away the plaintiff’s cattle. The action was entered at th.e October term of the common pleas, 1851, and both defendants then appeared. From that term the action was continued from term to term up to the October term, 1853, when, before the commencement of the trial, Lovering became defaulted. No damages were then assessed against him, it being deferred till the result against Locke was determined.
Read the full summary
Trespass, for taking and driving away the plaintiff’s cattle. The action was entered at th.e October term of the common pleas, 1851, and both defendants then appeared. From that term the action was continued from term to term up to the October term, 1853, when, before the commencement of the trial, Lovering became defaulted. No damages were then assessed against him, it being deferred till the result against Locke was determined. The plaintiff claimed to charge Locke only on the ground that Lovering, who took and drove away the cattle, was the servant of Locke, and acted therein by his…
1Opinion of the CourtEastman, J.
It does not appear from the ease whether the defendants filed any special plea or not. But we infer that the declaration was against them, jointly, and that the general issue alone was pleaded; and had Lovejoy not been defaulted, but the .cause have been tried against both, and the plaintiff succeeded, the verdict would have been joint against both. If there was but one trespass and that was *297joint, the damages assessed would be joint also, if both were found guilty, even if the defendants had severed in their pleas, or Lovejoy had been defaulted before plea pleaded. Hill & al. v. Goodchild, 5…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Proprietors of the Kennebeck Purchase v. BoultonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1808
- Bowman v. NoyesSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1841
3Cited by1 opinion
- Cole v. HobsonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1998