Hess v. Shurtleff
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, for goods sold. Trial at the April term, 19 06, of the superior court by Wallace, C. J., who ordered a verdict for the defendant, subject to the plaintiffs’ exception. The plaintiffs are wholesale fur dealérs in New York.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, for goods sold. Trial at the April term, 19 06, of the superior court by Wallace, C. J., who ordered a verdict for the defendant, subject to the plaintiffs’ exception. The plaintiffs are wholesale fur dealérs in New York. June 11, 1904, their salesman made a contract with the defendant, a retail dealer in Whitefield, by the terms of which goods of the value of $320.60 were to be shipped to him on consignment, the defendant to sell what he could and return the balance before the holidays, payment for the goods sold to be made December 1-10; 1904., The salesman had authority only to…
1Opinion of the Court
Parsons, O. J.
Whether the witnesses who were permitted to testify to the usage of business in the fur trade possessed the requisite qualifications to authorize the admission of their testimony was a question of fact for the trial court. Pattee v. Whitcomb, 72 N. H. 249, 253; Stewart v. Stearns, 63 N. H. 99, 107. As neither the evidence upon which they were found qualified nor the facts testified to by them are reported, the only question as to the sufficiency of the evidence to authorize the findings made arises from the fact that the witnesses were all retail dealers. It is obvious that…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Pattee v. WhitcombSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1903
- Stewart v. StearnsSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1884
3Cited by2 opinions
- Ricard v. Prudential Insurance Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1934
- Trimount Bituminous Products Co. v. Chittenden Trust Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1977