Legal Opinion

Vidal v. Errol\

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided May 1, 1934PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Per curiam

The form of proceeding adopted by the presiding; justice was accepted by both parties without objection. In State v. Corron, 73 N. H. 434, 462, involving similar procedure, it was said that there was “in substance a trial, — the facts being ascertained from the statements of counsel conceded to be correct, instead of from the: testimony of witnesses.” It does not appear here that the statements made were conceded to be correct, but that feature is immaterial, if the parties elect to rest upon such method of proof. Having; elected to submit the cause in this way, it is too late to object to…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State v. CorronSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1905
  2. Morin v. Travelers InsuranceSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1932
  3. Spaulding v. MayoSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1923
  4. Lamarre v. LamarreSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1929

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Perreault v. Allen Oil Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1935
  2. Bosse v. Wolverine InsuranceSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1936
  3. Lehigh Navigation Coal Co. v. Keene Coal Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1938
  4. Woodsville Fire District v. CraySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1936

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

Powered by the Exa API