Mt. Washington Hotel Co. v. Redington
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit. The writ contains the common counts for money lent and advanced; money paid, laid out, and expended ; money had and received; interest; goods sold and delivered; and labor done and material furnished.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit. The writ contains the common counts for money lent and advanced; money paid, laid out, and expended ; money had and received; interest; goods sold and delivered; and labor done and material furnished. The plaintiff moves to amend by adding two counts, as follows : Also, for that on the eighth day of April, 1872, at said Haverhill, the said Mount Washington Hotel Company contemplated the erection of a hotel in the town of Carroll, in our county of Cods, and in view of that fixed its capital stock at two hundred thousand dollars, in shares of one hundred dollars each ; and on the…
1Concurrence
Whenever the form of action is not charged and the identity of the cause of action is preserved, the particular allegations of the declaration may be changed and others added, to cure imperfections and mistakes in the manner of stating the plaintiff's case — Wiggin v. Veasey, 43 N.H. 313, Bailey v. Smith, ib. 409; but these amendments are wholly inconsistent with the original counts. To sustain the count for money paid, the plaintiff must prove actual payment, and a prior request, or subsequent assent by the defendant. But money expended for the corporation is not money expended for an…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Pinkerton v. Manchester & Lawrence RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1861
- Keyser v. District Number 8Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1857
- Whittemore v. GibbsSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1852
- Wiggin v. VeaseySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1861
- Burt v. KinneSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1867
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.