Dodge v. Leavitt
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, for services of the plaintiff’s intestate. Plea, the general issue and tlie statute of limitations. Replication, a new promise. Facts found by a referee. October 7, 1872, the defendant wrote a letter to Dr. Winch, the plaintiff’s intestate, claiming that there was but a small sum due, but offering him $107.30 if he would take that amount in full settlement. The offer was not accepted.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, for services of the plaintiff’s intestate. Plea, the general issue and tlie statute of limitations. Replication, a new promise. Facts found by a referee. October 7, 1872, the defendant wrote a letter to Dr. Winch, the plaintiff’s intestate, claiming that there was but a small sum due, but offering him $107.30 if he would take that amount in full settlement. The offer was not accepted. The defendant testified as follows: “ In the summer of 1876 I met Dr. Winch at the depot in Whitefield. He told me he wanted the matter fixed up. I told him I did too, and was willing to pay him what…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
There was no admission in the defendant’s letter that there was anything due beyond a small sum, and only a conditional offer to pay $107.30. He could make overtures for a settlement to avoid litigation, without being prejudiced thereby. But the admission of an independent fact, made during a treaty of compromise, would be admissible in evidence against him. The offer contained the distinct admission that a small sum only was due. No new promise can be found from his letter. 1 Gr. Ev., s. 192; Exeter Bank v. Sullivan, 6 N. H. 124, 132; Weare v. Chase, 58 N. H. 225.
So of the conversation of…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Barker v. HeathSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1907
- Pickering v. DerochemontSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1880