Little v. Upham

8 A. 823, 64 N.H. 279
Supreme Court of New Hampshire·Decided December 5, 1886·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Clark, J.

The objection that a verdict is against the evidence presents no question of law. It is a question of fact to be determined at the trial term. Fuller v. Bailey, 58 N. H. 71; Lefavor v. Smith, 58 N. H. 125; Kelley v. Woodward, 58 N. H. 153; Hovey v. Brown, 59 N. H. 114.

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

Little v. Upham, 8 A. 823, 64 N.H. 279 (N.H. 1886).

8 A. 823 (Little v. Upham) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Flaherty v. Manchester Street Railway
99 A. 89 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1916)
Pitman v. Mauran
40 A. 392 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1897)
Abbott v. Concord & Montreal Railroad
44 A. 912 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1897)
Drown v. Hamilton
44 A. 79 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1894)
Lucier v. Larose
20 A. 249 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1889)