Legal Opinion

Caldwell v. Yeatman

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided September 3, 1940No. 3188PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

As early as 1827 Chief Justice Richardson speaking for this court announced it was well settled as a rule of policy in this state that "jurors are not to be received to testify to the motives and inducements on which they may have joined in a verdict . . . . Nor can the affidavits of all the jurors be received to correct a mistake in the verdict." Tyler v. Stevens, 4 N.H. 116, 117. Six years later in the case of State v. Hascall, 6 N.H. 352, 361, an exception (see Hearn v. Railroad,67 N.H. 320, 323), to this general rule was formulated which permitted the use of affidavits of jurors to…

2Cases cited34 opinions

  1. H. P. Welch Co. v. StateSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1938
  2. Clark v. ManchesterSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1887
  3. Leighton v. SargentSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1855
  4. Mason v. KnoxSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1891
  5. Dearborn v. NewhallSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1885

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Drop Anchor Realty Trust Charlotte Marshall v. Hartford Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1985
  2. Winslow v. Town of Holderness Planning BoardSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1984
  3. State v. KennaSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1977
  4. Bothwick v. LaBelleSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1975
  5. Brigham v. Hudson Motors, Inc.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1978

6 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