56 N.H. 567 | N.H. | 1876
Lead Opinion
CHESHIRE COUNTY. It is objected that this case was improperly sent to an auditor because there were no accounts to be investigated or vouchers to be examined. I do not see any evidence of any vouchers in the case, but the specification and set-off were clearly accounts. I do not understand that the statute requires that there should be books of account to investigate. I suppose that whenever there have been money *569 transactions or dealings, any writing on which the items of those dealings are specified is an account, and that any examination of the merits and correctness of such an account is an investigation of accounts. My recollection of the practice at nisi prius is, that when the plaintiff's specification or the defendant's set-off is such an account, either would bring the case within the rule. I think here was plainly to be had an investigation of accounts; and the exception must be overruled.
The constitutionality of the statute relating to auditors was affirmed in Perkins v. Scott, post, decided at this term.
Concurrence Opinion
1. The law authorizes the appointment of an auditor "when an investigation of accounts or an examination of vouchers is necessary." The statute is in the alternative. A statement of various sums of money alleged to have been received of the plaintiff by the defendant at different times, and of labor alleged to have been performed by the plaintiff for the defendant, and also of items of interest due upon the money and labor, may properly enough be denominated an account; — and when the object of the suit is to ascertain whether the charges for money and labor and interest are correct or incorrect, the suit must be regarded as one involving an investigation of accounts.
2. In my judgment, it is too late to question in New Hampshire the constitutionality of the law authorizing the appointment of auditors.
SMITH, J., concurred.
Exceptions overruled. *570
