Concord Land & Water Power Co. v. Clough
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Petition, under the flowage act, for the assessment of damages to the defendant’s land. The plaintiffs excepted to the following statement in the argument for Clough: “ My brother Sargent made an excuse. He said that if you dug down there when you were up there, you could have seen what was under the surface. I didn’t think of that. He did, it seems. ... If I had thought of that, I should have had it done.”
1Opinion of the CourtPeaslee, J.
The plaintiffs’ comment on the defendant’s failure to show the nature of the soil by inspection was an argument concerning the failure to pr.oduce available evidence, and was unobjectionable (Mitchell v. Railroad, 68 N. H. 96, 116); while the defendant’s unsworn statement of the reason why such evidence was not produced vitiates the verdict. Bullard v. Railroad, 64 N. H. 27.
Verdict set aside.
Chase and Pike, JJ., did not sit: the others concurred.
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Mitchell v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1894
- Bullard v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1886
3Cited by6 opinions
- Hamburg-American Steam Packet Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1918
- Flint v. Union Water Power Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1906
- Stoddard v. Grand Trunk Western Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1916
- Wright v. DavisSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1904
- Knapp Ex Rel. Thayer v. StoneSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1918
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.