Paine v. Grand Trunk Railway Co.

7 A. 880, 63 N.H. 623
CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire
DecidedDecember 5, 1885
StatusPublished

This text of 7 A. 880 (Paine v. Grand Trunk Railway Co.) 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
Paine v. Grand Trunk Railway Co., 7 A. 880, 63 N.H. 623 (N.H. 1885).

Opinion

Blodgett, J.

1. The jury must have found by their verdict that the plaintiff was in the exercise of ordinary care at the time of the accident; and the reported facts disclose nothing sufficient to enable the court to say, as matter of law, that a nonsuit should have been ordered, or that the testimony of the witnesses, and especially when taken in connection with the inferences which the jury might have justifiably drawn from the view, was insufficient to support the verdict.

2. There plainly was competent evidence of negligence on the part of the defendants, for reasons given in the former opinion in this case, reported in 58 N. H. 611, 614; and what constitutes negligence in a given exigency is a question for the jury, and not for the court.

*624 A. S. Twitchell and Ladd $ Fletcher, for the plaintiff. 0. Bay and Brew Jordan, for the defendants.

3. The motion to set aside the verdict on the ground of excessive damages raises no question of law, and its denial by the presiding justice will not be reconsidered.

Exceptions overruled.

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

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

Related

Paine v. Grand Trunk Railway of Canada
58 N.H. 611 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1879)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
7 A. 880, 63 N.H. 623, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paine-v-grand-trunk-railway-co-nh-1885.