Occhipinti v. Weiner

20 A.2d 483, 91 N.H. 388, 1941 N.H. LEXIS 33
CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire
DecidedMay 6, 1941
DocketNo. 3232.
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 20 A.2d 483 (Occhipinti v. Weiner) 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
Occhipinti v. Weiner, 20 A.2d 483, 91 N.H. 388, 1941 N.H. LEXIS 33 (N.H. 1941).

Opinion

Branch, J.

In a case like the present, involving the interpretation of a written instrument, it is the function of this court to construe the writing in the light of the facts which are admitted or found to exist. Pettee v. Chapter, 86 N. H. 419. The contention of the defendant, Belle Weiner, at the argument was, not that the case was void of evidence to sustain the specific findings of the master, but that the facts found by him were insufficient to sustain his conclusion that “the deed from Bessie to Belle of March 4, 1929, was not considered by either party thereto as an absolute, indefeasible conveyance of Bessie’s title to Belle.” It is unnecessary to review in detail the findings of the master. It is sufficient to say that he found, upon competent evidence, certain facts regarding the conduct of the parties, contemporaneous with and subsequent to the execution of the document, indicating a practical construction of its terms, fully in accord with his final conclusion, with which we are quite content.

Exceptions overruled.

All concurred.

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

Related

Irwin v. Company
58 A.2d 618 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1948)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
20 A.2d 483, 91 N.H. 388, 1941 N.H. LEXIS 33, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/occhipinti-v-weiner-nh-1941.