Carey v. Dunsmore

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Carey v. Dunsmore

58 N.H. 357

DecidedJune 5, 1878

StatusPublished

This text of 58 N.H. 357 (Carey v. Dunsmore) 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

Carey v. Dunsmore, 58 N.H. 357 (N.H. 1878).

Pincite

Opinion

Stanley, J.

Under the instructions the jury must have found that the plaintiff was induced, in consequence of the declarations, acts, and conduct of the defendant, to change her position ; that she took the note, because he represented that it was a valid note, which he was liable to pay. These facts being proved, the doctrine of equitable estoppel, as recognized in Drew v. Kimball, 43 N. H. 282, and Horn v. Cole, 51 N. H. 287, applies. The instructions were correct.

Judgment on the verdict.

Allen and Clark, JJ., did not sit.

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

Stanley, J.

Under the instructions the jury must have found that the plaintiff was induced, in consequence of the declarations, acts, and conduct of the defendant, to change her position ; that she took the note, because he represented that it was a valid note, which he was liable to pay. These facts being proved, the doctrine of equitable estoppel, as recognized in Drew v. Kimball, 43 N. H. 282, and Horn v. Cole, 51 N. H. 287, applies. The instructions were correct.

Judgment on the verdict.

Allen and Clark, JJ., did not sit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 N.H. 357, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carey-v-dunsmore-nh-1878.