Legal Opinion

Cocheco Aqueduct Ass'n v. Boston & Maine R. R.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided December 5, 1882PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Assumpsit, reported 59 N. H. 312. The plaintiffs moved to amend the declaration by adding a count in case.

1Opinion of the CourtDob, C. J.

The amendment may be allowed if justice requires it (Merrill v. Perkins, 59 N. H. 343, Elsher v. Hughes, 60 N. H. 469); and the question of justice, so far as it is a question of fact, is determinable at the trial term. Garvin v. Legery, 61 N. H. 153. It does not appear that an amendment will be useful. Whatever the form of action, the question will arise at a new trial whether there is evidence of any other wrong than a breach of contract on which no action can be maintained.

Case discharged.

Clark, J., did not sit: the others concurred.

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Merrill v. PerkinsSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1879
  2. Garvin v. LegerySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1881
  3. Elsher v. HughesSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1881

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Morgan v. JoyceSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1891