Newell v. Horn
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Case for a false aud fraudulent representation in regard to the boundaries of lot 66, in Dummer. The declaration is as follows: In a plea of the case for that whereas the said defendant, to wit, at Dummer, in said county, to wit, on the fourth day of September, A. D. 1854, in consideration of a certain price to wit, one thousand dollars paid by the plaintiff to the defendant, did bargain, sell and convey unto the plaintiff, a certain lot of land situated in said Dummer, and…
Read the full summary
Case for a false aud fraudulent representation in regard to the boundaries of lot 66, in Dummer. The declaration is as follows: In a plea of the case for that whereas the said defendant, to wit, at Dummer, in said county, to wit, on the fourth day of September, A. D. 1854, in consideration of a certain price to wit, one thousand dollars paid by the plaintiff to the defendant, did bargain, sell and convey unto the plaintiff, a certain lot of land situated in said Dummer, and numbered sixty-six. [Amendment: and a certain other parcel of land, situate in Milan, aforesaid, lying southerly of said…
1Opinion of the CourtNesmith, J.
This was case for a false and fraudulent representation made by defendant, in regard to the boundaries of lot No. 66, in Dummer, and other adjoining lands. At the trial before the jury, the court excluded the testimony of Ransom Twitchell, who testified to the declaration of James H. Horn, the father and grantor of the defendant, in relation to the east line of lot No. 66. The defendant excepted to the ruling of the court. The evidence offered did not come within the recognized exception to the general rule, under which hearsay evidence of the declarations of deceased occupants of real estate…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Gilman v. CateSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1875