Larry v. Herrick
Larry v. Herrick.
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
Foster, J.
It is customary and proper, under our practice, for the plaintiff’s counsel to state his client’s case in various forms in different counts, in order to meet the proof which he may encounter upon the trial. Such statements may be apparently inconsistent, if regarded as a narrative of facts instead of a mere form of pleading. At the trial, one count cannot be adduced as evidence against another; nor can the fact, that evidence was offered at one time to sustain such count, be regarded as an admission by the party, on a subsequent trial of the same cause, that the facts as charged in such count are true, and that therefore he cannot proceed to trial oil a different count. The exclusion of the inconsistent counts as evidence is by force of an absolute rale of law, founded upon the policy of allowing a plaintiff, in his declaration, to state his case in inconsistent forms.
Cilley v. Jenness, 2 N. H. 87;
Chapman v. Sloan, 2 N. H. 467;
Bump v. Smith, 11 N. H. 48;
Kimball v. Bellows, 13 N. H. 58;
Buzzell v. Snell, 25 N. H. 474;
Hall v. Clement, 41 N. H. 168;
Keeler v. Bartine, 12 Wend. 110 ;
Hughes v. Moore, 7 Cranch 176 ; 1 Stark. Ev. 295; Gould’s Pl. 432.
The verdict must be set aside, and A new trial granted.
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 ⓘ
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.