History
  • No items yet
midpage
Austin v. Ricker
61 N.H. 97
| N.H. | 1881
|
Check Treatment

The plaintiff, if he did not accept the account rendered as a correct statement of the account between himself and the defendant, was bound to notify him within a reasonable time of his objections. No objection being made within a reasonable time, the defendant was justified in treating the plaintiff's silence as an admission that the account as rendered was just and true, and that he was willing to be bound by it. Rich v. Eldredge,42 N.H. 151, 158; Lockwood v. Thorne, 11 N.Y. 170, 174 — S.C.,18 N. Y. 285; Philips v. Belden, 2 Edw. Ch. 1; 1 Sto. Eq. Jur., s. 526.

The question what was a reasonable time was one of fact, to be found by the referee. Tyler v. Webster, 43 N.H. 147, 151; Lawrence v. Ocean Ins. Co., 11 Johns. 241; Aymar v. Beers, 7 Cow. 705; Ellis v. Thompson, 3 M. W. 445; Proffatt Jur. Tr. 288, note 6; Stark. Ev. 775. On this question the finding of the referee is adverse to the plaintiff.

Judgment for the defendant.

DOE, C[.] J., did not sit: the others concurred. *Page 100

Case Details

Case Name: Austin v. Ricker
Court Name: Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Date Published: Jun 5, 1881
Citation: 61 N.H. 97
Court Abbreviation: N.H.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.