Legal Opinion

Bagley v. Small

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided April 7, 1942No. 3303PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBranch, J.

1. The contention of the plaintiff “that the defendant’s conduct prior to and during the trial was such that he is not entitled to argue against the plaintiff’s right of action or to assert error in the trial” cannot be seriously considered in view of Public Laws, c. 315, s. 8. That section provides that a bill of exceptions which is “conformable to the truth of the case shall be allowed by the presiding justice and be entered in the supreme court for determination.” Under this section the only question for the court to decide is whether the bill is “conformable to the truth of the case.” If…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Guinan v. Famous Players-Lasky Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1929
  2. Boott Mills v. Boston & Maine RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1914
  3. Hudson v. Lynn & Boston RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1904
  4. Dzura v. PhillipsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1931
  5. Herlihy v. LittleMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1908

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Van Dusen v. BarrackSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  2. Calderwood v. CalderwoodSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1975
  3. O'Donnell v. Borough of South Coatesville, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Chester County1985

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

Powered by the Exa API