Merrill v. Perkins

61 N.H. 262
Supreme Court of New Hampshire·Decided December 5, 1881·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Dob, C. J.

The defendants’ motion raised a question of fact to be determined at the trial term, and the case shows no error of law. Hovey v. Brown, 59 N. H. 114; Smith v. Cushman, 59 N. H. 519; Gamsby v. Columbia, 58 N. H. 60; Daniels v. Lebanon, 58 N. H. 284; Burnham v. Butler, 58 N. H. 568; Wentworth v. Jefferson, 60 N. H. 158; Dodge v. Stickney, 60 N. H, 461; Hovey v. *264 Morrill, 61 N. H. 9, 14; Chase v. Woodward, 61 N. H. 79; Whitcher v. Dexter, 61 N. H. 91; Garvin v. Legery, 61 N. H. 153.

Exception overruled.

Stanley, J., did not sit: the others concurred.

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

Merrill v. Perkins, 61 N.H. 262 (N.H. 1881).

61 N.H. 262 (Merrill v. Perkins) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Golej v. Varjabedian
166 A. 287 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1933)
Remick v. J. Spaulding & Sons Co.
131 A. 608 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1926)
Flaherty v. Manchester Street Railway
99 A. 89 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1916)
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)