Russell v. Babbitt
Russell v. Babbitt, in Rev.
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
Allen, J.
The case does not show that the agreement was intended by the parties to be limited to the original action, and evidence of the agreement is competent in this action of review upon the question of the amount in controversy.
Page v. Brewster, 58 N. H. 126.
The defendant’s right of review was a right to bring a new action to recover what he alleges has been wrongfully taken from him by the judgment in the original suit.
Page v. Brewster, and cases cited. The amount in controversy, therefore, cannot exceed the amount of that judgment, which being less than $100, the action may be referred without the consent of the parties.
Case discharged.
BlNGHAM 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.