Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance

153 A.2d 794, 102 N.H. 207, 1959 N.H. LEXIS 46
CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire
DecidedJuly 10, 1959
DocketNo. 4734
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 153 A.2d 794 (Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance) 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
Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance, 153 A.2d 794, 102 N.H. 207, 1959 N.H. LEXIS 46 (N.H. 1959).

Opinion

Wheeler, J.

At a pre-trial conference at which all parties were represented by counsel, it was stipulated, among other things, that a special verdict should be submitted to the jury in the precise form subsequently given in the Court’s instructions. Rule 48 of the Superior Court Rules (99 N. H. 615) provides that the Court shall make an order which recites the action taken at a pre-trial conference, the agreements of the parties which limit the trial issues “and such order when entered controls the subsequent course of the action, unless modified at the trial to prevent manifested injustice.”

On the record before us we see no abuse of discretion in the Court’s finding that modification of the order was not required under Rule 48. The exception is therefore overruled.

Counsel for the Travelers Indemnity Company and Brusseau, adm’x, contend it was error to admit the testimony of chief Davis of Auburn concerning a conversation he had with Alice Hall “after she got out of the hospital and when her mind was free and clear” to the effect that on the night in question Brusseau was driving the motor vehicle. Counsel argue that a prior consistent statement is inadmissible unless the witness has been impeached and that such testimony is self-serving and hearsay. However, counsel sought in cross-examination to impeach Alice’s testimony on the basis of her prior deposition and in argument sought to draw the inference of a change in her position and that she was less than candid. Twardosky v. Company, 95 N. H. 279, 284; see State v. Slocinski, 89 N. H. 262. We believe the evidence of chief Davis was competent.

Exceptions overruled.

All concurred.

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

Related

State v. Lizotte
249 A.2d 874 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
153 A.2d 794, 102 N.H. 207, 1959 N.H. LEXIS 46, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/travelers-indemnity-co-v-farm-bureau-mutual-insurance-nh-1959.