Barker v. Hibbard
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, by Albert Barker against James A. Hibbard. The parties agreed to the following statement of facts : The plaintiff is a practising attorney of this court, and the claim is for services in defending the defendant in a suit or process of bastardy. The defendant was at the time a minor, who had been emancipated by his father.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, by Albert Barker against James A. Hibbard. The parties agreed to the following statement of facts : The plaintiff is a practising attorney of this court, and the claim is for services in defending the defendant in a suit or process of bastardy. The defendant was at the time a minor, who had been emancipated by his father. He was arrested on a warrant, issued on a complaint of the selectmen of Colebrook, charging that he was the father of a bastard child ; was brought before a magistrate and bound over to this court, and employed the plaintiff to defend him. The services were such…
1Opinion of the CourtHibbard, J.
If the plaintiff is entitled to recover in this action, it is upon the ground that professional services of an attorney, rendered to an infant defendant in a bastardy proceeding, are necessaries. A lawsuit may be necessary to an infant: whether it is so or not must be determined by circumstances, as in case of other things claimed to be necessaries. Thrall v. Wright, 38 Vt. 494. Services rendered by an attorney for the protection of an infant’s rights of property are not necessaries, and the attorney cannot recover for them of the infant, whether he had or had not a guardian. Phelps v.…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Baker v. LovetiMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1809
- Munson v. WashbandSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1863
- Warner & Ryan v. HeidenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1871
- Thrall v. WrightSupreme Court of Vermont · 1866
- People v. MooresNew York Supreme Court · 1847
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.