Raynes v. Raynes

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Raynes v. Raynes

55 N.H. 514, 1875 N.H. LEXIS 120

CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire

DecidedAugust 12, 1875

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 55 N.H. 514 (Raynes v. Raynes) 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

Raynes v. Raynes, 55 N.H. 514, 1875 N.H. LEXIS 120 (N.H. 1875).

Pincite

Opinion

Cushing, C. J.

The supreme court, at the law term, having substantially set aside the former finding and ordered a rehearing — Raynes v. Raynes, 54 N. H. 213 — because there had not been a sufficient hearing before, it seems sufficiently obvious that the previous finding, with which the court was dissatisfied, ought not to be made evidence at the rehearing. The order was substantially an order for a new trial. It would probably be something new to the profession, if, after a verdict set aside and a new trial granted, it should be held that the former verdict which had been set aside might be laid before the jury as prima facie evidence. I cannot understand how a verdict which had been set aside on account of a mis-trial, should also be considered as still in force until it is further impeached by evidence.

My opinion, therefore, is, that there should be a rehearing de novo.

Ladd and Smith, JJ., concurred.

New trial granted.

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

Cushing, C. J.

The supreme court, at the law term, having substantially set aside the former finding and ordered a rehearing — Raynes v. Raynes, 54 N. H. 213 — because there had not been a sufficient hearing before, it seems sufficiently obvious that the previous finding, with which the court was dissatisfied, ought not to be made evidence at the rehearing. The order was substantially an order for a new trial. It would probably be something new to the profession, if, after a verdict set aside and a new trial granted, it should be held that the former verdict which had been set aside might be laid before the jury as prima facie evidence. I cannot understand how a verdict which had been set aside on account of a mis-trial, should also be considered as still in force until it is further impeached by evidence.

My opinion, therefore, is, that there should be a rehearing de novo.

Ladd and Smith, JJ., concurred.

New trial granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 N.H. 514, 1875 N.H. LEXIS 120, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raynes-v-raynes-nh-1875.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack