Legal Opinion

Semprini v. Boston & Maine Railroad

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided May 7, 1935PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWoodbury, J.

The testimony concerning the utterance of the fireman was undoubtedly offered for the purpose of showing that the engineer negligently failed to heed a timely warning of the danger to the decedent. This testimony is clearly hearsay, and so is only to be received in evidence if it falls within some exception to the rule which excludes such evidence. It is argued that the testimony should be received either because the fireman’s statement constituted an admission of fault, or else because it formed a part of the res gestae. We are of the opinion that neither argument is tenable.

“An agent’s…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Murray v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1903
  2. St. Laurent v. Manchester Street RailwaySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1915
  3. Ernshaw v. RobergeSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1934
  4. Nebonne v. Concord RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1893
  5. Guerin v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1899

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. State v. HudsonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1981
  2. State v. CoppolaSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1987
  3. State v. PlummerSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1977
  4. State v. KennaSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1977
  5. State v. ColbySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1976

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

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

Powered by the Exa API