Pickering v. DeRochemont
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
In assumpsit, the declaration was as follows : " To answer to Frank T. Pickering of Newington; in said county, husbandman, and Sophia E. G. Pickering of said Newington, wife of said Frank T. Pickering, matron.
Read the full summary
In assumpsit, the declaration was as follows : " To answer to Frank T. Pickering of Newington; in said county, husbandman, and Sophia E. G. Pickering of said Newington, wife of said Frank T. Pickering, matron. "In a plea of the case, for that the said defendant, at said Exeter, on the day of the purchase of this writ, being indebted to the said plaintiffs in the sum of five thousand dollars, for so much money before that time had and received by said defendant to and for the plaintiffs’ use; and being so indebted, in consideration thereof, then and there promised the said plaintiffs to pay…
1Opinion of the CourtSargent, J.
The first question raised by the motion for a nonsuit is as to a variance between the declaration and the specification and the *75evidence introduced in support of it. It is objected that the declaration alleges an indebtedness of the defendant to the plaintiffs jointly, while the specification and the evidence (the auditor’s report,) state and prove an indebtedness to the wife alone before marriage. This objection, if seasonably taken, is well founded. The contracts stated in the declaration and in the specification are entirely different. The declaration is, that the defendant being indebted…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- M'Crea v. PurmortCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1836
- Field v. TorreySupreme Court of Vermont · 1835
- Thorne v. DillinghamCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1845
3Cited by3 opinions
- Britton v. GreenCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1963
- Chamberlin v. PerkinsSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1875
- Britton v. GreenCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1963