Peaslee v. Dudley
Peaslee v. Dudley.
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
Carpenter, J.
The question presented is of no practical importance. Time spent in considering it would be wasted. If upon examination it should be found that the action in its present form cannot be maintained, the plaintiff would be permitted to amend by filing r count in assumpsit. The facts upon which the rights *221 of the parties depend having been fully tried and determined, there is no occasion for a further trial. The plaintiff may amend by adding a count for money paid (McDuffee v. Railroad, 52 N. H. 459, Buckminster v. Wright, 59 N. H. 153, and Merrill v. Perkins, 59 N. H. 343), and thereupon there will be Judgment for the plaintiff.
Stanley, 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 8 cases
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.