Smith v. Boston & Maine Railroad

In support of their motion the plaintiffs contend that in the two transfers of the instant case this court has taken inconsistent positions in respect to the application of rule 103.

At the first transfer, reported in 87 N.H. 246, there was an agreement to the effect that "the place of accident was not a yard," and "there was evidence upon which . . . [the rule's] application to similar situations could be found." Under these circumstances we held, citing Derosier v. Company, 81 N.H. 451, that "The question of application was for the jury. If applicable to the place, the rule was an admission…