Doyle v. Doyle
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Cheshire County. * Assumpsit. The plaintiff’s specification was as follows : “ This action is brought to recover the sum of $667, for so much money bad and received of the plaintiff by the defendant, at different times between January 6,1860, and October 16, 1866, which amount the defendant promised to repay with interest, viz.,— Received of the plaintiff, on or about April 6, 1860, $19.50 July 6,1860, 19.50 October 6, 1860, 19.50 January 6,1861, 19.50 April 6,1861, 22.75…
Read the full summary
Cheshire County. * Assumpsit. The plaintiff’s specification was as follows : “ This action is brought to recover the sum of $667, for so much money bad and received of the plaintiff by the defendant, at different times between January 6,1860, and October 16, 1866, which amount the defendant promised to repay with interest, viz.,— Received of the plaintiff, on or about April 6, 1860, $19.50 July 6,1860, 19.50 October 6, 1860, 19.50 January 6,1861, 19.50 April 6,1861, 22.75 July 6, 1861, 22.75 October 6, 1861, 22.75 January 6,1862, 22.75 April 6, 1862, 26.00 July 6,1862, 26.00 October 6,1862,…
1Opinion of the Court
CHESHIRE COUNTY. It is objected that this case was improperly sent to an auditor because there were no accounts to be investigated or vouchers to be examined. I do not see any evidence of any vouchers in the case, but the specification and set-off were clearly accounts. I do not understand that the statute requires that there should be books of account to investigate. I suppose that whenever there have been money transactions or dealings, any writing on which the items of those dealings are specified is an account, and that any examination of the merits and correctness of such an account is…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Howe v. DaySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1879
- Perkins v. ScottSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1876