Parker v. Marvell

60 N.H. 30
Supreme Court of New Hampshire·Decided June 5, 1880·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

BlN<jj^J\í, J.

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.

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

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

Parker v. Marvell, 60 N.H. 30 (N.H. 1880).

60 N.H. 30 (Parker v. Marvell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Harrington v. Blanchard
49 A. 576 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1900)