Parker v. Marvell
Opinion
The arrangement was a secret inference of law. Coburn v. Pickering, pson, 43 N. H. 130; Coolidge v. Me Stockwell, 55 N. H. 561; Cutting v. Jackson, 56 N. Holmes, 58 N. H. 293; Flagg v. Pierce, 58 N. no satisfactory explanation of the vendor’s posses-was in Towne v. Rice, 59 N. H. 412, and French v. Hall, 9 H. 137. The wagon was used by the vendor for more than a yeai\ and from ordinary observation a neighbor or creditor would have supposed it to be the vendor’s property.
Judgment for the plaintiff.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
60 N.H. 30 (Parker v. Marvell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.