Seaver v. Manchester Street Railway
97 A. 220, 78 N.H. 584, 1916 N.H. LEXIS 68
Opinion
The defendant claims that verdicts should have been directed because upon one construction of Mrs. Seaver’s testimony it could have been found that the steps were “all right.” But another and equally legitimate interpretation of her testimony leads to the conclusion that the steps were icy, slippery and dangerous.
Exception overruled-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Seaver v. Manchester Street Railway, 97 A. 220, 78 N.H. 584, 1916 N.H. LEXIS 68 (N.H. 1916).
97 A. 220 (Seaver v. Manchester Street Railway) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Feuerstein v. Grady
169 A. 622 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1933)
Goldstein v. United Amusement Corp.
169 A. 587 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1933)