Lemire v. Haley's Estate
| Decision Date | 06 January 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 3300.,3300. |
| Parties | LEMIRE v. HALEY'S ESTATE. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Transferred from Superior Court, Strafford County; Connor, Judge.
Suit by Sadie Lemire against the estate of William H. Haley, deceased. On the issue of damages in quantum meruit, and in advance of retrial, the court transferred the case without ruling on certain questions. Case discharged.
Probate appeal, being the same case reported in 91 N.H. —, 19 A.2d 436. On the issue of damages in quantum meruit, and in advance of retrial, the court has transferred without ruling the following questions:
(a) Whether the [new] declaration and specification filed by the plaintiff is sufficient and whether the defendant is entitled to a further specification.
(b) Whether the defendant's admission [of the plaintiff's right to compensation for such services and expenses as she may prove she rendered and incurred for the decedent after the date of the alleged unenforceable contract] should be accepted or rejected in part.
(c) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to offer evidence of the alleged oral contract and the circumstances surrounding it prior and subsequent to its making and the value of the real and personal estate left by decedent at his death (1) by reason of the admission in b, supra, and (2) on the question of damages, and
(d) Whether the plaintiff may offer evidence to show that the services rendered by her to the decedent by reason of their relationship were of a peculiar, special and beneficial nature to the decedent.
Hughes & Burns, of Dover (Walter A. Calderwood, Jr., of Dover, orally), for plaintiff.
Cooper, Hall & Grimes, of Rochester (Wm. A. Grimes, of Rochester, orally), for defendant.
The new declaration is defective in setting forth a claim based on quantum meruit. It avers an amount based on the terms of the contract held unenforceable and resolves itself, when analysed, into a declaration for breach of that contract. The issue is not whether that contract was a fair one, but regardless of its provisions for compensation, is how much the plaintiff should fairly be awarded for her services and expenses rendered and incurred in action in reliance upon the contract if it was made. A declaration upon the common counts is sufficient if supplemented with specifications which will duly inform the defendant in advance of trial what is claimed.
So far as the defendant's admission relates to liability, it dispenses with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blanchard v. Calderwood
... ... The plaintiffs seek by these actions to recover from the estate of Ernest F. Blanchard, late of Wilton, for services alleged to have been rendered to the decedent ... to this court by reserved case stating: 'Clarification of the validity and application of Lemire v. Haley, 91 N.H. 357, (19 A.2d 436); 92 N.H. 10 (23 A.2d 769); 92 N.H. 358, (31 A.2d 62); 93 N.H ... ...
-
Sullivan v. Dumaine
... ... 11; Foley v. Elliot Community Hospital, 98 N.H. 186, 188, 96 A.2d 735. Cf. Lemire v. Haley, 91 N.H. 357, 19 A.2d 436. The plaintiff's exception to the denial of her petition for ... The statute cuts both ways; it may allow evidence that is favorable to an estate or unfavorable to it. The statute allows the evidence to be admitted because it is considered ... ...
-
Lemire v. Haley.
...19 A.2d 436. In the present proceeding the defendant concedes that the plaintiff is entitled to compensation for her services. See 92 N.H. 10, 23 A.2d 769. The defendant excepted to certain statements made by plaintiff's counsel in his argument to the jury and to the refusal of the Court to......
-
Miller Auto. Co. v. State Highway Bd.
...evidence,-that is 'whether or not part or all of the testimony of witness Albert Young should have been stricken.' In Lemire v. Haley's Estate, 95 N.H. 10, 23 A.2d 769, the lower court certified questions concerning the admission or rejection of evidence pending a retrial. The New Hampshire......