Legal Opinion

Hobbs v. George W. Blanchard & Sons Co.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided October 6, 1908PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFeasi.ee, J.

It is not necessary to review tlie decision that putting the dynamite Avliere the deceased could come in contact with it, after his presence on the premises was known, would be active intervention within the rule as heretofore applied in this state. Hobbs v. Company, 74 N. H. 116. Conceding that it would be, there was no sufficient evidence to establish the fact. Lacombe (the man who handled the dynamite) was called as a witness for the plaintiff, and denied that he put the dynamite there at the time alleged. The plaintiff was then allowed to contradict the witness by using a deposition in…

2Cited by18 opinions

  1. Bradley v. Texas & P. Ry. Co.Texas Commission of Appeals · 1928
  2. Ouellette v. BlanchardSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1976
  3. Garafano v. Neshobe Beach Club, Inc.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1967
  4. Derosier v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1925
  5. Nevada National Bank v. Gold Star Meat CompanyNevada Supreme Court · 1973

13 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