Eida v. Stoddard, No. 6174

Decision Date05 April 1971
Docket NumberNo. 6174
Citation276 A.2d 12,111 N.H. 123
PartiesJacob EIDA v. Amy W. STODDARD.
CourtNew Hampshire Supreme Court

Edward P. McDuffee, Hollis (by brief and orally), for plaintiff.

Wiggin, Nourie, Sundeen, Pingree & Bigg and Robert H. Hurd, Manchester, for defendant.

GRIMES, Justice.

In this bill in equity, the trial court entered a decree, assented to by counsel, establishing the boundary line between the property of these parties and decreeing certain rights of the parties with respect thereto. Defendant's exceptions were reserved and transferred by Flynn, J.

The parties are owners of certain property in Hollis in this State which is separated by a common boundary, the Nissitissit River, a non-navigable stream about thirty feet wide at this location. The Eida property is southerly of the river. In 1963 Stoddard started two actions against Eida. One was a bill in equity which sought to establish the boundary line between their properties, i.e., whether the thread of the river as claimed by Eida or the southerly bank as claimed by Stoddard. The other action was in trespass, in which Stoddard made similar claims and sought damages for trespass. At a hearing before Charles J. Flynn as Master, Stoddard's own deed was disclosed to describe her boundary as the 'center of the river.' The master recommended a decree which was entered by the court establishing the boundary at the thread of the river.

In 1966 Eida filed this bill in equity claiming that Stoddard had harassed him by erecting a fence and markers on his side of the river, removing his markers, and trespassing on numerous occasions. Charles J. Flynn was again appointed Master and, after hearing, made findings fixing the location of the thread of the river which was the boundary. After the master's report was filed, Charles J. Flynn had been appointed to the superior court and a hearing was set before him as justice. Mrs. Stoddard was unable to be present but her husband was present as was her counsel. Counsel for the parties entered into an oral agreement that an independent surveyor be hired to determine the location of the thread of the river. There is a dispute about some of the details, i.e., whether counsel and the surveyors of the parties were to be present. The survey was made by one Hills without anyone else being present and his report was filed with the court. The court, on August 6, 1969 after stating that the matter had come on for hearing and 'the parties appearing by counsel and being heard' entered a decree establishing the permanent boundary in accordance with the plan prepared by Hills and ordered the plan to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Koval v. Simon Telelect, Inc., 94S00-9710-CQ-552
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • 31 Marzo 1998
    ...whatever memorializes that proceeding. This rule is followed in many, but certainly not all jurisdictions. See, e.g., Eida v. Stoddard, 111 N.H. 123, 276 A.2d 12 (1971); De Charette v. St. Matthews Bank & Trust Co., 214 Ky. 400, 283 S.W. 410 (1926); Turner v. Turner, 241 Miss. 444, 130 So.2......
  • Paras v. City of Portsmouth
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • 28 Febrero 1975
    ...We cannot agree. An attorney is the agent of the client, provided his acts are within the scope of his authority. Eida v. Stoddard, 111 N.H. 123, 276 A.2d 12 (1971). Plaintiff is, therefore, bound by the acts of his attorney, including acts of omission or neglect. Dumas v. Hartford etc. Ind......
  • Laurel Bank and Trust Co. v. Burns
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • 26 Febrero 1979
    ...v. Karlak, 450 Pa. 535, 299 A.2d 294 (1973); But see Beliveau v. Amoskeag Mfg. Co., 68 N.H. 225, 40 A. 734 (1895); Eida v. Stoddard, 111 N.H. 123, 276 A.2d 12 (1971); Sustrik v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 189 Pa.Super. 47, 149 A.2d 498 (1959).3 See also Winfield Assoc., Inc. v. Stoneciph......
  • Estate of Kelly, In re
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • 8 Agosto 1988
    ...for his or her clients, Manchester Housing Authority v. Zyla, 118 N.H. 268, 269, 385 A.2d 225, 226-27 (1978); Eida v. Stoddard, 111 N.H. 123, 125, 276 A.2d 12, 13 (1971); cf. Ducey v. Corey, 116 N.H. 163, 164, 355 A.2d 426, 426 (1976), we hold, on the facts before us, that although the cont......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT