Hoyt v. Horst

A fundamental issue before us is whether the Court properly left it to the jury to decide whether the defendant Horst was an undisclosed principal in the dealings between the plaintiff Mrs. Hoyt and the defendant Collins. To determine this requires a somewhat detailed examination of the facts.

Viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the plaintiff (Shimkus v. Caesar, 95 N. H. 286; Lamarche v. Granite State &c. Ins. Co., 101 N. H. 210), the jury could find the following: For many years prior to and including the period of the happenings which…