Gilman v. Noyes
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
From Coos Circuit Court. Case, for carelessly leaving the plaintiff’s bars down, whereby his cattle and sheep escaped, and he was compelled to expend, and did expend, time and money in hunting for the same, and his sheep were wholly lost. i The evidence tended to show that the defendant, in looking after his own cattle, left the plaintiff’s bars down, and that his cattle, and three sheep belonging to one Marshall, and which the plaintiff was pasturing, were wholly lost.
Read the full summary
From Coos Circuit Court. Case, for carelessly leaving the plaintiff’s bars down, whereby his cattle and sheep escaped, and he was compelled to expend, and did expend, time and money in hunting for the same, and his sheep were wholly lost. i The evidence tended to show that the defendant, in looking after his own cattle, left the plaintiff’s bars down, and that his cattle, and three sheep belonging to one Marshall, and which the plaintiff was pasturing, were wholly lost. The defendant denied that said cattle and sheep escaped through the bars, and introduced evidence tending to show that they…
1Concurrence
I concur in the foregoing conclusions of the chief-justice, and for the reasons given by him. The principal question in this case has been much discussed in the English and American courts, though but little in this state. The rule, that the plaintiff can recover only when the defendant's act or negligence was the proximate cause of the injury, is one of universal application; but the difficulty lies in determining when the cause is proximate and when remote. It is a mixed question of law and of fact, to be submitted to the jury under proper instructions. We have recently held that it is…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- State v. Manchester & Lawrence RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1873
- Underhill v. City of ManchesterSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1864
- Cate v. CateSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1870