Peirce v. Burroughs
Peirce & A., Adm'rs, v. Burroughs, Ex'r
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Smith, J.
At common law the surviving party could testify in equity in matters of accounting before a master, in his discretion, subject to revision by the chancellor.
Page v. Whidden, 59 N. H. 507. • The statutes permitting parties to testify were not intended to repeal this rule of the common law. The intent of the legislature was in the direction of enlarging, and not of restricting, the admission of testimony.
Clements v. Marston, 52 N. H. 31;
Stewart v. Harriman, 56 N. H. 25, 33;
Day v. Day, 56 N. H. 316, 318. There is nothing in this case which shows that the discretion of the referee was not fairly exercised, and we see no occasion to revise it.
*513 As the witness was properly allowed to testify, the whole amount of credits claimed should be allowed. This result makes it unnecessary to examine the other questions raised at the hearing.
Case discharged.
Clark, 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.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.