Roulias v. Crafts

124 A. 194, 81 N.H. 107, 1923 N.H. LEXIS 25
Supreme Court of New Hampshire·Decided June 28, 1923·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

*108 Young, J.

Although the evidence shows that the plaintiff was •injured by the'negligence of the defendant’s chauffeur while driving the defendant’s car, it also shows that he was driving the car, not for the defendant, but on an errand of his own; that is, shows that he was acting for himself and not for the defendant when the accident happened; consequently the plaintiff cannot recover. Danforth v. Fisher, 75 N. H. 111; Dearborn v. Fuller, 79 N. H. 217; Wilkinson v. Company, 79 N. H. 335.

Exception sustained.

All concurred.

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

Roulias v. Crafts, 124 A. 194, 81 N.H. 107, 1923 N.H. LEXIS 25 (N.H. 1923).

124 A. 194 (Roulias v. Crafts) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Travelers Insurance v. Marcoux
21 A.2d 161 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1941)
Utica Mutual Insurance v. Langevin
177 A. 549 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1935)
Bowen v. Soucy
2 F. Supp. 481 (D. New Hampshire, 1933)