Chadbourne v. Exeter

29 A. 408, 67 N.H. 190
Supreme Court of New Hampshire·Decided June 5, 1892·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Carpenter, J.

There was evidence tending to prove the facts necessary to be established in order to entitle the plaintiff to recover in an action against the town. A verdict in her favor ■could not be set aside on the ground that there was no evidence tending to show that she exercised ordinary care, or that the ■defendants neglected their duty. To deny the plaintiff an opportunity to try the merits of her claim, when, on the evidence presented, .a verdict might properly, be found in her favor, may be manifest injustice within the meaning of the statute. Gitchell v. Andover, 59 N. H. 363.

Exceptions overruled.

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

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

Chadbourne v. Exeter, 29 A. 408, 67 N.H. 190 (N.H. 1892).

29 A. 408 (Chadbourne v. Exeter) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bernier Ex Rel. Paquet v. Whitefield
116 A. 133 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1921)
Prichard v. Boscawen
97 A. 563 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1916)
Owen v. Derry
52 A. 926 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1902)
Hendry v. North Hampton
51 A. 283 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1901)
Welsh v. Franklin
48 A. 1102 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1900)