History
  • No items yet
midpage
Bailey v. Smith
43 N.H. 409
N.H.
1861
Check Treatment
Bellows J.

The action' is for goods sold and delivered, and goods bargained and sold, and is brought to recover the price of certain telegraph poles. It having been held, as matter of law, that there was no delivery, the plaintiff moved to amend by adding the special count for not accepting the poles bargained, and paying therefor.

We think the ruling of the coui’t, allowing the amendment, was right; that it was not introducing a new cause of action, within the principle of the decided cases, but that the court can see that the identity of the original cause is preserved; Stevens v. Mudgett, 10 N. H. 338; which we think covers the whole ground; and the cases where a general count is allowed to be filed, on failure to sustain a special count, or where the special contract has been rescinded, are in point. Burnham v. Spooner, 10 N. H. 165; Wiggin v. Veasey, 43 N. H. 313. Exceptions overruled.

Case Details

Case Name: Bailey v. Smith
Court Name: Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Date Published: Dec 15, 1861
Citation: 43 N.H. 409
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.