Rollins v. Brock

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Rollins v. Brock

109 A. 44, 79 N.H. 331, 1920 N.H. LEXIS 3

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Rollins v. Brock. Read the opinion of the Court — 78 N.H. 456 →

Supreme Court of New Hampshire·Decided January 6, 1920·Published

Opinion

Young, J.

Whether the judgment should be conditional or absolute is a question of fact, not law; that is, it depends on the facts of this case. The question, therefore, raised by the defendant’s exception is whether there is any evidence to warrant the court’s finding that justice requires the decree be absolute. The defendant disclaimed any intention of redeeming the property, so instead of there being no evidence to sustain the court’s finding, that is the only conclusion of which the evidence is fairly capable.

Exception overruled.

All concurred.

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

Young, J.

Whether the judgment should be conditional or absolute is a question of fact, not law; that is, it depends on the facts of this case. The question, therefore, raised by the defendant’s exception is whether there is any evidence to warrant the court’s finding that justice requires the decree be absolute. The defendant disclaimed any intention of redeeming the property, so instead of there being no evidence to sustain the court’s finding, that is the only conclusion of which the evidence is fairly capable.

Exception overruled.

All concurred.

Rollins v. Brock, 109 A. 44, 79 N.H. 331, 1920 N.H. LEXIS 3 (N.H. 1920).

Pincite

109 A. 44 (Rollins v. Brock) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.