Case ID: nh_59/html/0530-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Allen, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Locke v. Barrington.
    The court may refer an action against the consent of the parties, when the plaintiff limits his demand to $100, though the ad damnum in the writ exceeds that sum.
    Case, for injury upon a highway. The ad damnum in the writ exceeded $100, and the plaintiff’s counsel stating that he did not claim more than $100, the cause was referred against the defendants’ objection. The referee awarded $150. The plaintiff remitting the amount in excess of $100, the court ordered judgment for the plaintiff for that sum, and the defendants excepted.
    Wheeler, for the defendants.
    
      Copeland Edgerly, for the plaintiff.
   Allen, J.

When the plaintiff limited her demand to one hundred dollars, the amount in controversy became limited to that sum, and the title to real estate not being in question, the court, either with or without the consent of the parties, might refer the action. G. L., c. 231, s. 10. The award exceeding the amount claimed, the plaintiff was entitled to judgment on remitting the excess. Hoit v. Molony, 2 N. H. 323; Sanborn v. Emerson, 12 N. H. 58; Pierce v. Wood, 23 N. H. 519; Willard v. Stevens, 24 N. H. 271; Taylor v. Jones, 42 N. H. 25, 38.

Exceptions overruled. ■

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