Putnam v. Goodall
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit. The action was referred to an auditor, who reported that nothing was due from the defendant to the plaintiff. At the hearing before the auditor certain questions of law arose, which, by agreement of parties, were stated by the auditor for the purpose of submitting them to the court. The court, on considering these questions, ordered that the report be set aside, and further ordered the rule by which the case was referred to an auditor to be discharged.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit. The action was referred to an auditor, who reported that nothing was due from the defendant to the plaintiff. At the hearing before the auditor certain questions of law arose, which, by agreement of parties, were stated by the auditor for the purpose of submitting them to the court. The court, on considering these questions, ordered that the report be set aside, and further ordered the rule by which the case was referred to an auditor to be discharged. To these orders the defendant excepted. And on his motion, it was ordered that the questions arising on said order be reserved and…
1Opinion of the CourtEastman, J.
This action is stated to be assumpsit, but no specification or statement of the grounds of claim accompanies the case as sent from the common pleas, and we *422are left somewhat in uncertainty as to the real cause of aetion. We suppose, however, that the action was brought against Mr. Goodall for money advanced, labor performed, or materials furnished in rebuilding the factory; that these were all furnished to Pratt, and that the question of the case was, whether the credit was given to Goodall through Pratt, as his agent, or to Pratt himself. . It is upon this view of the case, substantially,…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Sebree v. DorrSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
- Mann v. LockeSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1840
- Brewster v. EdgerlySuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1842
- Lovering v. LoveringSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1843
- Hart v. YuntSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1832
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- King v. HopkinsSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1876