Legal Opinion

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Dunn

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided May 31, 1939No. 3088PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtMarble, J.

The plaintiff’s contention that the evidence does not warrant a finding of permissive use is untenable. Levesque, called by the defendants, testified that Blais lived in his home as a member of his family; that he had allowed Blais to use his automobile on various occasions and that he was willing that he should use it if he took good care of it. In answer to the inquiry, “Did you make any limitations on this day in question about the use of the car?” he said: “No, he just told me he was going to Peabody.”

On cross-examination Levesque stated that Blais, when granted permission to use the ear,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Aetna Life Insurance v. ChandlerSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1937
  2. Maryland Casualty Co. v. MartinSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1937
  3. Barry v. BartisSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1931
  4. Liberty Mutual Insurance v. MartelSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1937
  5. Wentworth v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1933

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Plimpton v. TheosSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1973

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

Powered by the Exa API