Drew v. Claggett
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit. The writ was dated October 20, 1856, and contained five counts, tbe first upon an account annexed, the other four general, for goods sold, labor and services performed, money had and received, money paid, &c. Plea — the general issue, with notice of a set-off and of a special agreement, under which it was alleged that the labor was performed.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit. The writ was dated October 20, 1856, and contained five counts, tbe first upon an account annexed, the other four general, for goods sold, labor and services performed, money had and received, money paid, &c. Plea — the general issue, with notice of a set-off and of a special agreement, under which it was alleged that the labor was performed. The cause was committed to an auditor, who made a report, finding a balance in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant elected a trial by jury. Upon the trial, the plaintiff put in the auditor’s report and rested his ease. The’defendant then…
1Opinion of the CourtFowler, J.
It is well settled in this State that the report of an auditor is prima facie evidence that its findings are correct, and that it makes a case upon which the party in whose favor it is may well rest, until its conclusions are impeached, controlled, or overthrown by other evidence. The ruling of the court below upon this point was, therefore, strictly correct. Mathes v. Bennett, 21 N. H. 188; Shouter v. Swindles, 37 N. H. 559.
So, too, the authorities are clear, explicit and uniform, that where money has been paid, goods sold and delivered, or services rendered, upon a contract executory on the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Copp v. HennikerSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1875
- Chamberlin v. PerkinsSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1875
- King v. HopkinsSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1876