Legal Opinion

Derosier v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided October 5, 1926PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPeaslee, C. J.

The defendant did not move for a nonsuit or for a directed verdict at the usual time; but asked for a directed verdict after the charge to the jury. The motion was denied and the defendant excepted. Objection to the consideration of the question sought to be raised in this manner is put upon the ground that the motion came too late.

The well-established rule is that an objection to the sufficiency of evidence is waived unless taken at a time when there may still be an opportunity to supply the deficiency. Elwell v. Roper, 72 N. H. 585; Gendron v. St. Pierre, 73 N. H. 419; Farnham v. Anderson,…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Lacoss v. LebanonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1917
  2. Elwell v. RoperSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1904
  3. Gardner v. Commercial MacHine Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1920
  4. Manchester Amusement Co. v. Conn.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1922
  5. Baldwin v. WentworthSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1892

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Carlisle v. Frisbie Memorial HospitalSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 2005
  2. American Casualty Co. v. PearceDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1958
  3. Hall v. Wentworth's LocationSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1930

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

Powered by the Exa API