Bartlett v. Mansfield
| Decision Date | 07 January 1913 |
| Citation | 85 A. 756,76 N.H. 582 |
| Parties | BARTLETT v. MANSFIELD. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Transferred from Superior Court, Hillsborough County; Mitchell, Judge.
Action by Eben L. Bartlett against George H. Mansfield to recover the penalty imposed by section 16, c. 57, Public Statutes. Trial by jury, and verdict for the defendant. Transferred from the superior court on exceptions taken by the plaintiff. On the ground that the private action for a penalty was abolished by chapter 31, Laws 1899, judgment was ordered for the defendant, without considering the exceptions. State v: McConnell, 70 N. H. 158, 161, 46 Atl. 458; Noyes v. Edgerly, 71 N. H. 500, 503, 505, 53 Atl. 311.
David W. Perkins, of Manchester, for plaintiff.
Wason & Moran, of Nashua, for defendant.
Judgment for defendant.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith & Sargent v. Am. Car Sprinkler Co.
...authority which supports the defendants' present contention. Motile v. Slawsby was placed upon the ground announced in Bartlett v. Mansfield, 76 N. H. 582, 85 Atl. 756, that, "the private action for a penalty was abolished by chapter 31, Laws 1899." The statement was sound upon the facts in......
-
Coulombe v. Eastman
...70 N. H. 156, 46 Atl. 683; State v. McConnell, 70 N. H. 158, 46 Atl. 458; Noyes v. Edgerly, 71 N. H. 500, 53 Atl. 311; Bartlett v. Mansfield, 76 N. H. 582, 85 Atl. 756. As in Morrison v. Bedell, supra, the language of the statute was that the offender "shall forfeit" a certain sum "to the p......
- Sherman v. Me. Cent. R. Co.