Legal Opinion

Wright v. Boston & Maine Railroad

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided November 5, 1924PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtYoung, J.

The test to determine the validity of the defendants’ exception is to inquire whether it can be found that they (1) authorized their claim agent to admit liability, or (2) held him out as having such authority.

1. The evidence relevant to the issue of what the defendants actually authorized Clinton to do consists of his testimony that he was employed to investigate claims for personal injuries and to adjust them when that could be done for five hundred dollars or less, and their admission that he was employed to adjust and settle personal injury claims. This is all the evidence there is…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Bohanan v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1900
  2. Westminster National Bank v. New England Electrical WorksSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1906
  3. Atto v. SaundersSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1915
  4. New Hampshire Wholesale Fruit Co. v. PaineSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1923
  5. Hilliard v. Upper Coos RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1913

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Semprini v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1935
  2. Hunkins v. Amoskeag Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1933
  3. Ernshaw v. RobergeSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1934
  4. Sullivan v. John Hancock Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1933

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

Powered by the Exa API