Legal Opinion

Mann v. Peterson Motor Express, Inc.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided January 3, 1939No. 3022PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWoodbury, J.

The record discloses that counsel for the defendants did not expend an inordinate amount of time upon the issue of damages. The inference of fact urged upon the jury in the above quoted argument was therefore unwarranted by the evidence, and since it received the sanction of the court, the pláintiff’s verdict must be set aside. Salvas v. Cantin, 85 N. H. 489, 491 and cases cited.

There is, however, another and a broader ground upon which to base our conclusion that this argument was improper. This is the ground of public policy mentioned in Christie v. Company, 87 N. H. 236, 238. In that case…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Salvas v. CantinSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1932
  2. Christie v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1935
  3. Martel v. White MillsSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1920

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Heilman v. WhalleySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1939
  2. Moffatt v. GaleSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1943
  3. Energynorth v. AssociatesDistrict Court, D. New Hampshire · 2000
  4. Phaneuf v. Ortleib, et al.District Court, D. New Hampshire · 2013

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API