58 N.H. 135 | N.H. | 1877
The excluded evidence tended to prove an agreement of the defendant and his wife not to oppose the probate of the father's will, as a consideration for the promise of the plaintiff to consider as paid the note in suit, and deliver it to Mrs. Gilman as her share. Such a promise by the defendant and his wife would be a sufficient consideration for the alleged promise of the plaintiff. Hall v. Buckminster, 5 Pick. 393; Met. Con. 163, 172, 173; Templeton v. Bascom,
The presiding justice at the trial will determine how much of the case it is necessary to try, to correct the error.
DOE, C.J., did not sit. *137