Morrison v. Noone
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Petition, for the assessment of damages under the ffowage act, P. S., c. 142, ss., 12-19. Trial by jury and verdict for the defendant. A bill of exceptions was allowed by Branch, J.,-at the May term, 1916, of the superior court.
Read the full summary
Petition, for the assessment of damages under the ffowage act, P. S., c. 142, ss., 12-19. Trial by jury and verdict for the defendant. A bill of exceptions was allowed by Branch, J.,-at the May term, 1916, of the superior court. Plaintiff showed title to the premises since 1903 by deeds dating back to 1851. The defendant claimed the right to flow the plaintiff’s land by virtue of a verbal agreement made in 1854 by his father, his predecessor in title, with the owners of land above the dam, at which time a letter “H” was cut in a rock near the pond above the dam to mark the height to which the…
1Opinion of the CourtParsons, C. J.
The exception to the cross-examination of the defendant by his counsel, the defendant being called as a witness by the plaintiff, does not present anything for consideration by this court. Moody v. Perley, ante, 17, 22; Gerrish v. Gerrish, 63 N. H. 128.
The exceptions to statement of matters not in evidence by counsel in argument are well founded. Unless the matter so introduced appears clearly immaterial (Kuba v. Devonshire Mills, ante, 245) or the error was cured by withdrawal and apology at the time (Bullard v. Railroad, 64 N. H. 27), the exceptions destroy the verdict. But as it is not…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Bennett v. LaroseSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1926
- Monteith v. Manchester Rendering Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1925
- E. A. Strout Farm Agency v. HosfordSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1925
- Kuehl v. HamiltonOregon Supreme Court · 1931