Cardwell v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Cardwell v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

178 A. 125, 87 N.H. 485, 1935 N.H. LEXIS 55

DecidedApril 2, 1935

StatusPublished

This text of 178 A. 125 (Cardwell v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.) 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.

Bluebook

Cardwell v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 178 A. 125, 87 N.H. 485, 1935 N.H. LEXIS 55 (N.H. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The only exception of the plaintiff is to the order dismissing his bill. The facts having been found by the court, this exception raises the question whether the order and the ruling upon which it was based are inconsistent with the findings and nothing more. This question has not been argued and is hardly debatable. The contention of the plaintiff is rather that certain items of evidence compel the conclusion that the agent of the defendant companies had more authority, actual and apparent, than the court found him to possess. This question has not been transferred, and the. plaintiff’s exception must, therefore, be overruled. An examination of the record indicates, however, that the same result would be reached if the question argued were properly before us for decision.

Exception overruled.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam:

The only exception of the plaintiff is to the order dismissing his bill. The facts having been found by the court, this exception raises the question whether the order and the ruling upon which it was based are inconsistent with the findings and nothing more. This question has not been argued and is hardly debatable. The contention of the plaintiff is rather that certain items of evidence compel the conclusion that the agent of the defendant companies had more authority, actual and apparent, than the court found him to possess. This question has not been transferred, and the. plaintiff’s exception must, therefore, be overruled. An examination of the record indicates, however, that the same result would be reached if the question argued were properly before us for decision.

Exception overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 A. 125, 87 N.H. 485, 1935 N.H. LEXIS 55, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cardwell-v-aetna-casualty-surety-co-nh-1935.