Dame v. Wood

66 A. 484, 74 N.H. 212, 1907 N.H. LEXIS 24
Supreme Court of New Hampshire·Decided April 2, 1907·Published

Opinion

Young, J.

It can be found from the fact that a person fails to act because of a mistake of his counsel, that he was prevented from acting by accident, mistake, or misfortune (Grout v. Cole, 57 N. H. 547; Bolles v. Dalton, 59 N. H. 479, 480; Kelsea v. Manchester, 64 N. H. 570; Harvey v. Northwood, 65 N. H. 117; Cossar v. Truesdale, 69 N. H. 490; Parsons v. Durham, 70 N. H. 44; Gunnison v. Abbott, 73 N. H. 590, 592); so there was evidence to .sustain the court’s finding, which is the only question of law raised by the defendant’s exception.

Exception overruled.

All concurred.

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

Dame v. Wood, 66 A. 484, 74 N.H. 212, 1907 N.H. LEXIS 24 (N.H. 1907).

66 A. 484 (Dame v. Wood) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cossar v. Truesdale
45 A. 252 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1898)
Bolles v. Dalton
59 N.H. 479 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1879)
Grout v. Cole
57 N.H. 547 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1876)
Kelsea v. Manchester
15 A. 206 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1888)
Gunnison v. Abbott
64 A. 23 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1906)
Harvey v. Northwood
19 A. 653 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1889)
Parsons v. Durham
47 A. 600 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1899)