Smith Shook & Lumber Co. v. Perkins

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Smith Shook & Lumber Co. v. Perkins

111 A. 301, 79 N.H. 528, 1920 N.H. LEXIS 64

DecidedApril 6, 1920

StatusPublished

This text of 111 A. 301 (Smith Shook & Lumber Co. v. Perkins) 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

Smith Shook & Lumber Co. v. Perkins, 111 A. 301, 79 N.H. 528, 1920 N.H. LEXIS 64 (N.H. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Young, J.

The evidence warrants the jury’s finding that Patten sold the lumber in question to the plaintiffs. The only question, therefore, for this court is whether the evidence warrants a finding that Patten was authorized to sell it. The evidence relevant to that issue all comes from him and from the defendant, and is in substance that the defendant asked him sometime in October, 1917, if he thought the plaintiffs still wanted the lumber and told him *529 that if they did he could haul them one or two loads and that if the measure they gave was not the same as the marks on the loads to let him know. It is clear that this evidence will not sustain a finding that Patten was authorized to make the trade the jury found he made with the plaintiffs.

Exception sustained: judgment for the defendant.

Peaslee, J., was absent: the others concurred.

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

Young, J.

The evidence warrants the jury’s finding that Patten sold the lumber in question to the plaintiffs. The only question, therefore, for this court is whether the evidence warrants a finding that Patten was authorized to sell it. The evidence relevant to that issue all comes from him and from the defendant, and is in substance that the defendant asked him sometime in October, 1917, if he thought the plaintiffs still wanted the lumber and told him *529 that if they did he could haul them one or two loads and that if the measure they gave was not the same as the marks on the loads to let him know. It is clear that this evidence will not sustain a finding that Patten was authorized to make the trade the jury found he made with the plaintiffs.

Exception sustained: judgment for the defendant.

Peaslee, J., was absent: the others concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 A. 301, 79 N.H. 528, 1920 N.H. LEXIS 64, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-shook-lumber-co-v-perkins-nh-1920.