Robbins v. Nims

7 A.2d 261, 90 N.H. 555, 1939 N.H. LEXIS 98
CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire
DecidedMay 31, 1939
DocketNo. 3074.
StatusPublished

This text of 7 A.2d 261 (Robbins v. Nims) 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
Robbins v. Nims, 7 A.2d 261, 90 N.H. 555, 1939 N.H. LEXIS 98 (N.H. 1939).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff based his motion for judgment upon a clause in the receipt providing that the payments were made “in final settlement and satisfaction of all claims for compensation subject to review as provided by Law.” The final modifying words are meaningless in themselves, and there is nothing in their context, or in our statute, or practice, which enables us to interpret them otherwise than as suggesting resort to such equitable relief as the plaintiff invoked in his bill. The grounds for such relief not having been found, and no question having been raised as to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings actually made (Tuftonboro v. Willard, 89 N. H. 253, 262), the order is

Exception overruled.

All concurred.

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

Related

Tuftonboro v. Willard
197 A. 404 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1938)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
7 A.2d 261, 90 N.H. 555, 1939 N.H. LEXIS 98, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robbins-v-nims-nh-1939.