Faulkner v. Jefts

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Faulkner v. Jefts

98 A. 1084, 78 N.H. 589, 1916 N.H. LEXIS 72

DecidedApril 4, 1916

StatusPublished

This text of 98 A. 1084 (Faulkner v. Jefts) 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

Faulkner v. Jefts, 98 A. 1084, 78 N.H. 589, 1916 N.H. LEXIS 72 (N.H. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Young, J.

Instead of there being no evidence to sustain the court’s finding, the conclusion that the deed was procured by fraud is the only one that can fairly be drawn from the evidence.

*590 The defendant’s contention that it was an abuse of discretion to order him to reconvey without providing for the repayment of what he gave for the farm is equally without merit. There is no finding that he paid anything for the farm; and that he did is not the only conclusion of which the evidence is fairly capable.

Exception overruled.

All concurred.

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

Young, J.

Instead of there being no evidence to sustain the court’s finding, the conclusion that the deed was procured by fraud is the only one that can fairly be drawn from the evidence.

*590 The defendant’s contention that it was an abuse of discretion to order him to reconvey without providing for the repayment of what he gave for the farm is equally without merit. There is no finding that he paid anything for the farm; and that he did is not the only conclusion of which the evidence is fairly capable.

Exception overruled.

All concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 A. 1084, 78 N.H. 589, 1916 N.H. LEXIS 72, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/faulkner-v-jefts-nh-1916.