TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Willard v. Sullivan

Willard v. Sullivan.

Willard v. Sullivan, 45 A. 400 (N.H. 1898)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of New Hampshire · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 5, 1898
Judges
Blodgett, Peaslee
Citations
45 A. 40069 N.H. 491
Headnotes
The extent to which a cross-examination upon collateral issues shall be permitted for the purpose of testing the memory of a witness is a question of fact for the trial term. Testimony educed upon a cross-examination as to immaterial issues is not open to contradiction.
Summary
Willard v. Sullivan. Assumpsit, to recover upon a special promise by the owner to pay the past and future bills of a sub-contractor. Facts found by the court. One Beaudry, the principal contractor, was asked -what the final result of his contract with the owner was,— whether the house cost more or less than the contract price. The plaintiff objected on the ground that it was immaterial. The defendant’s counsel asked the privilege of inquiring along that line for the purpose of testing the memory of the witness, and was permitted to do so to a considerable extent. The court then ruled that he had inquired sufficiently for this purpose, and the defendant excepted. The defendant offered to show that he had paid Beaudry in full. The court ruled that the evidence was immaterial. The defendant then offered the evidence to contradict Beaudry’s statements which had been received in evidence for the purpose of testing his credibility, as above stated. The evidence was excluded, and the defendant excepted.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Blodgett

Blodgett, C. J.

How far justice required the inquiries to Beaudry, upon the immaterial point whether the house cost more *492 ■or less than the contract price, should be allowed to go for the purpose of testing his memory, was a question of fact to be determined at the trial (Spalding v. Merrimack, 67 N. H. 382, 383;

Baldwin v. Wentworth, 67 N. H. 408, 409); and his statements so made were not open to contradiction upon the other immaterial point as to whether he had been fully paid by the defendant for building the house.

Sumner v. Crawford, 45 N. H. 416, 418;

Dewey v. Williams, 43 N. H. 384, 386;

Hersom v. Henderson, 23 N. H. 498, 506, 507.

Exceptions overruled.

Peaslee, J., did not sit: the others concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1927: 11930: 11932: 11937: 119272026peak 1927 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Despiau v. United States Casualty Co.89 F.2d 43 (1st Cir. 1937)
  2. State v. Mannion136 A. 358 (N.H. 1927)
  3. Cohen v. United States56 F.2d 28 (1st Cir. 1932)
  4. Kaplan v. Swartz41 F.2d 177 (1st Cir. 1930)

Most recent

  1. Despiau v. United States Casualty Co.89 F.2d 43 (1st Cir. 1937)
  2. Cohen v. United States56 F.2d 28 (1st Cir. 1932)
  3. Kaplan v. Swartz41 F.2d 177 (1st Cir. 1930)
  4. State v. Mannion136 A. 358 (N.H. 1927)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Baldwin v. Wentworth, 36 A. 365 (N.H. 1892) 8
Spalding v. Merrimack, 36 A. 253 (N.H. 1892) 2

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list