Legal Opinion
Bridgham v. Effingham
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Decided September 21, 1934PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.
The motion for a directed verdict specified three grounds. One was that the road at the place of the accident had been placed under state aid.
In the preliminary litigation between the parties upon the issue of the plaintiff’s right to file his claim it was held, in Bridgham v. Effingham, 86 N. H. 332, that the requirements for a state-aid character of the road at the place of the accident were not shown. The present inquiry is whether proof of essentials then lacking has been supplied.
As then appeared, sections of the road were under state aid, but no joint-fund money had been expended to…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Harlow v. LeclairSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1927
- Vidal v. ErrolSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1932
- Cozzi v. HooksettSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1931
- Kelsea v. StratfordSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1921
- Parker v. New BostonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1918
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Sarkise v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1936
- Bartis v. WarringtonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1941