Merchants Mutual Casualty Co. v. Robert Pinard

183 A. 36, 87 N.H. 473, 1936 N.H. LEXIS 81
Supreme Court of New Hampshire·Decided February 4, 1936·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The master was warranted in finding a conditional sale of the automobile. The insured testified that he sold it and had nothing to do with it after the sale. There was other evidence tending to show that he gave up possession and control when he sold. If a contract other than one of such a sale might have been found, the evidence did not compel the trier thus to find. The circumstances claimed to disprove a conditional sale are not conclusive to such effect.

The insured retaining title only for security (Mercier v. Company, 84 N. H. 59, 63, 64), the accident is not within the coverage of the policy.

Exceptions overruled.

Marble, J., was absent.

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

Merchants Mutual Casualty Co. v. Robert Pinard, 183 A. 36, 87 N.H. 473, 1936 N.H. LEXIS 81 (N.H. 1936).

183 A. 36 (Merchants Mutual Casualty Co. v. Robert Pinard) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Merchants Mutual Insurance v. Simoneau
312 A.2d 571 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1973)
W. W. Lynch v. United States Branch
327 F.2d 328 (Fourth Circuit, 1964)
Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp. v. Southwest Casualty Co.
149 F. Supp. 600 (W.D. Arkansas, 1957)
Home Indemnity Co. v. Bowers
253 S.W.2d 750 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1952)
Employers Liability Assurance Corp. v. Maguire
65 Pa. D. & C. 231 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1948)
Employers Liability Assurance Corp. v. Sweatt
57 A.2d 157 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1948)