Summary
In Lemire v. Haley's Estate, 92 N.H. 10, 23 A.2d 769, the lower court certified questions concerning the admission or rejection of evidence pending a retrial.
Summary of this case from Miller Automobile Co. v. Highway BoardOpinion
No. 3300.
Decided January 6, 1942.
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. A declaration purporting to be upon a quantum meruit is defective if based on the terms of a special contract previously held to be unenforceable. Questions of the Superior Court transferred on exceptions to the disposition of a probate appeal will not be answered by the Supreme Court where the course of a retrial is too uncertain in anticipation, and its outcome may render the questions moot. Issues of fairness of trial may better be decided by the normal process of review than by preliminary rulings.
PROBATE APPEAL, being the same case reported in 91 N.H. 357. On the issue of damages in quantum meruit, and in advance of retrial, the court (Connor, J.) 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 (Mr. Walter A. Calderwood orally), for the plaintiff.
Cooper, Hall Grimes (Mr. Grimes orally), for the 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 analyzed, 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 the trial what is claimed.
So far as the defendant's admission relates to liability, it dispenses with the need of offer of proof of the contract.
As to the remaining questions, it is considered inexpedient and contrary to good practice to answer them. The course of the retrial is too uncertain in anticipation and its outcome may render the questions moot. The case is one in which any issues of fairness of trial may be better decided by the normal process of review than by preliminary rulings. Fellows v. Fellows, 68 N.H. 611; Morse v. Morse, 71 N.H. 622; White Mt. c. Co. v. Murphy, 78 N.H. 398, 403; Fitzhugh v. Railway, 80 N.H. 185, 190; Watkins v. Railroad, 80 N.H. 468, 469; Goudie v. Company, 81 N.H. 88, 93; Stocker v. Railroad, 83 N.H. 401, 407.
Case discharged.