Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

43 N.H. 409

Bailey v. Smith

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided December 15, 1861

Supreme Court of New Hampshire · decided 1861-12-15

<p>The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court.</p>

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently June 1879

8 state decisions

Relies on Stevenson v. Mudgett · Wiggin v. Veasey · Burnham v. Spooner

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1861-12-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Bellows J.

¶1The action' is for goods sold and delivered, and goods bargained and sold, and is brought to recover the price of certain telegraph poles. It having been held, as matter of law, that there was no delivery, the plaintiff moved to amend by adding the special count for not accepting the poles bargained, and paying therefor.

¶2We think the ruling of the coui’t, allowing the amendment, was right; that it was not introducing a new cause of action, within the principle of the decided cases, but that the court can see that the identity of the original cause is preserved; Stevens v. Mudgett, 10 N. H. 338; which we think covers the whole ground; and the cases where a general count is allowed to be filed, on failure to sustain a special count, or where the special contract has been rescinded, are in point. Burnham v. Spooner, 10 N. H. 165; Wiggin v. Veasey, 43 N. H. 313. Exceptions overruled.

/43/nh/409 · .json · Public domain