Legal Opinion

Beliveau v. Amoskeag Manufacturing Co.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided December 5, 1894Published

Motion, by the plaintiff, to strike off the docket entry “judgment for the plaintiff by agreement and judgment satisfied,” made in accordance with a written agreement entered into by the attorneys of the parties, entitled as of the term, and filed with the clerk while the court was in session, as follows : “ It is' agreed that judgment in this case be entered for the plaintiff in .the sum of one thousand dollars and costs, and judgment satisfied in full.”

Read the full summary

Motion, by the plaintiff, to strike off the docket entry “judgment for the plaintiff by agreement and judgment satisfied,” made in accordance with a written agreement entered into by the attorneys of the parties, entitled as of the term, and filed with the clerk while the court was in session, as follows : “ It is' agreed that judgment in this case be entered for the plaintiff in .the sum of one thousand dollars and costs, and judgment satisfied in full.” The action is case for injuries to the plaintiff’s person, and was commenced by her attorney, C., in February, 1891. In August, 1891, the…

1Opinion

In arriving at the conclusion that the motion must be denied, the authorities have not been overlooked which hold that an infant cannot employ an attorney or an agent, or make a valid agreement to compromise his suit (Biddell v. Dowse, 6 B. C. 255; Armitage v. Widoe, 36 Mich. 124; 2 Laws. Rights, Rem. Prac., s. 824; Tapley v. McGee, 6 Ind. 56; Wainwright v. Wilkinson, 62 Md. 146), or those which hold that the "next friend" of an infant is not his agent or attorney, but an officer of the court, who derives his authority, not from the infant, but from the court. Guild v. Cranston, 8 Cush. 506;…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Tripp v. GiffordMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1891
  2. Ralston v. LaheeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1859
  3. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. FitzpatrickCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1872
  4. Smith v. McDonaldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871
  5. Armitage v. WidoeMichigan Supreme Court · 1877

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API