Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America v. Cannon

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America v. Cannon

52 A.2d 855, 94 N.H. 319, 1947 N.H. LEXIS 171

CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire

DecidedMay 6, 1947

DocketNo. 3643.

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 52 A.2d 855 (Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America v. Cannon) 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

Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America v. Cannon, 52 A.2d 855, 94 N.H. 319, 1947 N.H. LEXIS 171 (N.H. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Branch, C. J.

This case is governed by the so-called “borrowed servant” rule which has been stated as follows: “When one person lends his servant to another for a particular employment, the servant, for anything done in that particular employment, must be dealt with as the servant of the man to whom he is lent, although he remains the general servant of the person who lent him. In other words, the servant of A may, for a particular purpose or on a particular occasion, be the servant of B, though he continues to be the general servant of A and is paid by him for his work.” 1 Labatt, Master & Servant, s. 57.

*321 The finding which the Court embodied in its order that “coverage included use of auto by McFarland” presupposes a further finding that, for the particular purpose and on the particular occasion in question, McFarland was acting as the servant of the defendant Cannon. This was a question of fact (Balcus v. Company, 93 N. H. 428, 429) upon which the finding of the Trial Court cannot be disturbed if there is evidence to sustain it. We think that the evidence in regard to the employment of McFarland by Mrs. Cannon is susceptible of the interpretation which the Trial Court placed upon it, and the plaintiff’s exception is, therefore, overruled.

Judgment for the defendants.

Blandin, J., did not sit: Johnston, J., dissented: the others concurred.

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

Branch, C. J.

This case is governed by the so-called “borrowed servant” rule which has been stated as follows: “When one person lends his servant to another for a particular employment, the servant, for anything done in that particular employment, must be dealt with as the servant of the man to whom he is lent, although he remains the general servant of the person who lent him. In other words, the servant of A may, for a particular purpose or on a particular occasion, be the servant of B, though he continues to be the general servant of A and is paid by him for his work.” 1 Labatt, Master & Servant, s. 57.

*321 The finding which the Court embodied in its order that “coverage included use of auto by McFarland” presupposes a further finding that, for the particular purpose and on the particular occasion in question, McFarland was acting as the servant of the defendant Cannon. This was a question of fact (Balcus v. Company, 93 N. H. 428, 429) upon which the finding of the Trial Court cannot be disturbed if there is evidence to sustain it. We think that the evidence in regard to the employment of McFarland by Mrs. Cannon is susceptible of the interpretation which the Trial Court placed upon it, and the plaintiff’s exception is, therefore, overruled.

Judgment for the defendants.

Blandin, J., did not sit: Johnston, J., dissented: the others concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.2d 855, 94 N.H. 319, 1947 N.H. LEXIS 171, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/indemnity-insurance-co-of-north-america-v-cannon-nh-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack