From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Association v. Railroad

Supreme Court of New Hampshire Strafford
Dec 1, 1882
62 N.H. 345 (N.H. 1882)

Opinion

Decided December, 1882.

The form of action may be changed by amendment when justice requires it to be done; and the question of justice, so far as it is a question of fact, is determined at the trial term.

ASSUMPSIT, reported 59 N.H. 312. The plaintiffs moved to amend the declaration by adding a count in case.

Marston Eastman (with whom was S. M. Wheeler), for the plaintiffs. If the whole wrong had been a violation of a contract within the statute of frauds, the statute would be a defence in any form of action. Vasse v. Smith, 6 Cranch 226. But here was another wrong. 1 Ch. Pl. 135; Govett v. Radnidge, 3 East 62; Coggs v. Bernard, 2 Ld. Ray. 909.

A. R. Hatch and J. Hatch, for the defendants. It is said that equity will enforce certain verbal contracts, notwithstanding the statute. But "the fraud against which equity will relieve is not the mere moral wrong of repudiating a contract actually entered into," but not in writing. Browne St. Frauds, ss. 437, 439; 2 Sto. Eq. Jur., ss. 768, 757; Montacute v. Maxwell, 1 P. Wms. 618; Whitchurch v. Bevis, 2 Brown Ch. 567, 569 n.

G. C. Yeaton, for the defendants. The plaintiffs, by varying the form of their action, cannot alter the intrinsic nature of the case. Add. Torts 726, Ross v. Terry, 63 N.Y. 614; Neftel v. Lightstone, 77 N.Y. 96; Sparman v. Keim, 83 N.Y. 245; Wright v. Geer, 6 Vt. 151; Vail v. Strong, 10 Vt. 457; Mann v. Birchard, 40 Vt. 326; McDermott v. M. Co., 38 N. J. Law 53; Martin v. Hand, 11 R. I. 306; Ill. C. R. R. v. Phelps, 4 Bradw. 238; Und. Torts 102.


The amendment may be allowed if justice requires it (Merrill v. Perkins, 59 N.H. 343, Elsher v. Hughes, 60 N.H. 469); and the question of justice, so far as it is a question of fact, is determinable at the trial term. Garvin v. Legery, 61 N.H. 153. It does not appear that an amendment will be useful. Whatever the form of action, the question will arise at a new trial whether there is evidence of any other wrong than a breach of contract on which no action can be maintained.

Case discharged.

CLARK, J., did not sit: the others concurred.


Summaries of

Association v. Railroad

Supreme Court of New Hampshire Strafford
Dec 1, 1882
62 N.H. 345 (N.H. 1882)
Case details for

Association v. Railroad

Case Details

Full title:COCHECO AQUEDUCT ASSOCIATION v. BOSTON MAINE R. R

Court:Supreme Court of New Hampshire Strafford

Date published: Dec 1, 1882

Citations

62 N.H. 345 (N.H. 1882)

Citing Cases

Morgan v. Joyce

DOE, C. J. Exception overruled. Wendell v. Mugridge, 19 N.H. 109, 113, 114; Baker v. Davis, 22 N.H. 27,…