Cail v. MacIolek
This text of 78 A.2d 530 (Cail v. MacIolek) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The issues here are whether the testimony of the plaintiff as to what he paid for repairs to his automobile is admissible and if so whether it is sufficient to sustain the verdict. We believe the evidence is competent and warrants the verdict. The fair inference to be drawn from the uncontradicted testimony of the plaintiff was that these repairs were made necessary by the accident and that he considered them reasonable in amount. In similar situations other courts have held such evidence admissible and sufficient to sustain a verdict. Malinson v. Black, 83 Cal. App. (2d) 375; Mazer v. Levy, 260 N. Y. Supp. 823. We are in accord with this view and it follows that the order must be
Judgment on the verdict.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
78 A.2d 530, 96 N.H. 445, 1951 N.H. LEXIS 184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cail-v-maciolek-nh-1951.