Sadie Lemire v. John Haley

It cannot be said that the Presiding Justice, acting in accordance with the law of the trial, was not warranted in setting the verdict aside as excessive. See Golej v. Varjabedian, 86 N.H. 244, 246, 247. The plaintiff's exceptions to the order of the court is accordingly overruled It therefore becomes necessary, for the guidance of the Superior Court in the conduct of the next trial, to consider the final item of the plaintiff's bill of exceptions. In that item the plaintiff ""reserves and relies upon any and all"" exceptions taken by her prior to and during the trial. Subject to the plaintiff's exception, the Presiding Justice ruled at the beginning of the trial that she would ""not be allowed to show"" the oral contract. The New Hampshire decisions on this subject (Ham v. Goodrich, 37 N.H. 185, 190; Emery v. Smith, 46 N.H. 151, 155, 156; Weeks v. Lund, 69 N.H. 78, 84) are believed to conform to the views of Professor Woodward as stated in the following paragraph, which will be found on pages 166 and 167 of his work on Quasi Contracts: