Legal Opinion

Reed v. Boston & Maine Railroad

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided January 2, 1923PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtParsons, C. J.

“The mortality tables were competent evidence of the plaintiff’s expectation of life. 3 Wig. Ev., s. 1698.” Piper v. Railroad, 75 N. H. 228, 234. This the defendants concede, but they contend that their objection “to what he [plaintiff’s counsel] offers” was an objection to the authenticity of the document or paper offered as representing the Carlisle tables. That the language used did not definitely bring this objection to the attention of the court might be a sufficient answer to the claim now made but, conceding such an objection was properly made, the case presents nothing for this court.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Bourassa v. Grand Trunk Railway Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1909
  2. Piper v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1909
  3. Burrill v. AlexanderSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1910

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Monteith v. Manchester Rendering Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1925

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

Powered by the Exa API