Hartshorn v. Schoff
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
AssuMPSiT, by Lucius Hai’tshorn against Seneca, Lydia* and William Schoff and Clark Knapp, for work and labor and'materials, and for money had and received, and on an account annexed for >1281.66, The specification was for double the cost of building fence alleged to have been assigned to the defendants to build, by the fence-viewers, as their part of the division fence, together with the expense of the fence-viewers.
Read the full summary
AssuMPSiT, by Lucius Hai’tshorn against Seneca, Lydia* and William Schoff and Clark Knapp, for work and labor and'materials, and for money had and received, and on an account annexed for >1281.66, The specification was for double the cost of building fence alleged to have been assigned to the defendants to build, by the fence-viewers, as their part of the division fence, together with the expense of the fence-viewers. Plea, the general issue. . The plaintiff introduced copies of the records of the applications to the fence-viewers, the proceedings thereon, the division of the fence, and the…
1Opinion of the Court
Sjiith, J. I.
It is objected that the selectmen exceeded their authority in appointing Ockington to act generally as a fence-viewer, instead of limiting his power to this particular case.
*319If an agent “ does wbat be was authorized to do, and something more,” it will be good, so far as he was authorized to go, “ if that part be distinctly severable from the remainder.” In such case, the excess only will be void. 2 Kent’s Com. 619 ; 1 Parsons on Contracts, 4th ed., 68. Here the selectmen had authority under Gen. Stats., ch. 238, sec. 8, to appoint some one to act in this case. They, in effect,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Prescott v. TuftsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1808
- Guyer v. StrattonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1861
- Fox v. BeebeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1855