Hess v. Shurtleff

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Hess v. Shurtleff

65 A. 377, 74 N.H. 114, 1906 N.H. LEXIS 77

CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire

DecidedDecember 4, 1906

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 65 A. 377 (Hess v. Shurtleff) 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

Hess v. Shurtleff, 65 A. 377, 74 N.H. 114, 1906 N.H. LEXIS 77 (N.H. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Parsons, O. J.

Whether the witnesses who were permitted to testify to the usage of business in the fur trade possessed the requisite qualifications to authorize the admission of their testimony was a question of fact for the trial court. Pattee v. Whitcomb, 72 N. H. 249, 253; Stewart v. Stearns, 63 N. H. 99, 107. As neither the evidence upon which they were found qualified nor the facts testified to by them are reported, the only question as to the sufficiency of the evidence to authorize the findings made arises from the fact that the witnesses were all retail dealers. It is obvious that knowledge of the usage of trade between wholesale and retail dealers would not be confined to wholesale dealers, bxrt must be equally known to the other parties to the contracts to which the usage relates. It cannot, therefore, be held as matter of law that retail dealers might not have such knowledge of the xxsage in question as would qualify them to testify, or that their testimony might not be sufficient to authorize the conclusion as to the existence of the usage found by the court.

It does xiot appear that the plaintiffs’ claim as to the groxxnd of their exceptions correctly states the evidence. But if it be assumed that the evidence did not establish the plaintiffs’ knowledge of the xxsage, and that it was insufficient as matter of law to bind them by a contract or consignment sxxch as the defendant set up, the verdict for him will not be affected. The plaintiffs alleged a contract of sale, and could recover only by showing that the defexxdant agreed, expressly or by implication, to buy the goods. Whether the evidence authorized a finding that the plaintiffs were bound by the contract set up by the defendaixt was immaterial, and no such finding was made. The failure of the plaintiffs to establish the contract set up by them requires the verdict which was rendered, without regard to the insufficiency of the evidence *116 to establish the contract set up by the defendant. If there was in fact no contract, no 'agreement as to sale or consignment, the plaintiffs could not recover.

Exceptions overruled.

All concurred.

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

Parsons, O. J.

Whether the witnesses who were permitted to testify to the usage of business in the fur trade possessed the requisite qualifications to authorize the admission of their testimony was a question of fact for the trial court. Pattee v. Whitcomb, 72 N. H. 249, 253; Stewart v. Stearns, 63 N. H. 99, 107. As neither the evidence upon which they were found qualified nor the facts testified to by them are reported, the only question as to the sufficiency of the evidence to authorize the findings made arises from the fact that the witnesses were all retail dealers. It is obvious that knowledge of the usage of trade between wholesale and retail dealers would not be confined to wholesale dealers, bxrt must be equally known to the other parties to the contracts to which the usage relates. It cannot, therefore, be held as matter of law that retail dealers might not have such knowledge of the xxsage in question as would qualify them to testify, or that their testimony might not be sufficient to authorize the conclusion as to the existence of the usage found by the court.

It does xiot appear that the plaintiffs’ claim as to the groxxnd of their exceptions correctly states the evidence. But if it be assumed that the evidence did not establish the plaintiffs’ knowledge of the xxsage, and that it was insufficient as matter of law to bind them by a contract or consignment sxxch as the defendant set up, the verdict for him will not be affected. The plaintiffs alleged a contract of sale, and could recover only by showing that the defexxdant agreed, expressly or by implication, to buy the goods. Whether the evidence authorized a finding that the plaintiffs were bound by the contract set up by the defendaixt was immaterial, and no such finding was made. The failure of the plaintiffs to establish the contract set up by them requires the verdict which was rendered, without regard to the insufficiency of the evidence *116 to establish the contract set up by the defendant. If there was in fact no contract, no 'agreement as to sale or consignment, the plaintiffs could not recover.

Exceptions overruled.

All concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 A. 377, 74 N.H. 114, 1906 N.H. LEXIS 77, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hess-v-shurtleff-nh-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack