Hoyt v. French
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, on a promissory note signed by the defendants, and payable to the plaintiff, or order, on demand, with interest. The case was committed to an auditor, who reported that he found due from the defendants to the plaintiff the sum of two hundred and forty-eight dollars, being the amount of the note and interest.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, on a promissory note signed by the defendants, and payable to the plaintiff, or order, on demand, with interest. The case was committed to an auditor, who reported that he found due from the defendants to the plaintiff the sum of two hundred and forty-eight dollars, being the amount of the note and interest. The auditor further reported that upon the hearing, Moses French, one of the defendants and the surety on the note, testified that at the time he signed the note, April 22,1848, it was agreed between the parties that the first money his brother Amos French, the other defendant,…
1Opinion of the CourtEastman, J.
If, on the return of the report of an auditor, it appears that the case was an improper one to be submitted, or that incompetent evidence has been received, or that an informal and illegal report has been made, the proper practice is to move to recommit or reject the report, according to the nature of the objections. A case improperly referred to an auditor, or a report illegally made, cannot go to the jury for their consideration. Brewster v. Edgerly, 13 N. H. Rep. 275; Bartlett v. Trefethen, 14 N. H. Rep. 427. But these questions are not now before us. The question for our decision is,…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Mann v. LockeSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1840
- Brewster v. EdgerlySuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1842
- Bailey v. AdamsSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1839
- Bartlett v. TrefethenSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1843
- Lisbon v. ClarkSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1846
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.