59 N.H. 16 | N.H. | 1879
Whether the contract was entire, and whether the plaintiff was to be paid for his services before or after the contract was fully performed, were questions of fact upon which the plaintiff's right to recover depended, and they were to be determined from the evidence.
In some jurisdictions it is held, that where an attorney is employed to prosecute or defend a suit, the presumption is that the contract is entire; that the employment continues to the end of the suit; that there can be no recovery, and the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the suit is ended, or the contract is in some other way terminated. This is an exception to the general rule in relation to contracts for services, and is not recognized here. Livermore v. Rand,
The auditor has failed to answer these questions, and the report should be recommitted for him to find specifically what the contract was.
Case discharged.
ALLEN, J., did not sit: the others concurred. *18