Miner v. Franklin
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
The defendant’s motions for nonsuits were denied, subject to exception. After the verdicts were returned, the defendant moved to set them aside as against the law and the evidence, and in support of the motions showed the following facts: In 1913 and 1914 Franklin received from the state qertain sums apportioned for state aid to the city for expenditure upon the Hill road, and the money was so expended.
Read the full summary
The defendant’s motions for nonsuits were denied, subject to exception. After the verdicts were returned, the defendant moved to set them aside as against the law and the evidence, and in support of the motions showed the following facts: In 1913 and 1914 Franklin received from the state qertain sums apportioned for state aid to the city for expenditure upon the Hill road, and the money was so expended. At the close of the season in 1914 the work of reconstruction had extended from Franklin to within about two miles of the place of the accident. The furnishing of state aid to continue the…
1Opinion of the CourtPbaslee, J.
The defendant’s argument upon its motions for nonsuits seems to be chiefly based upon the contention that the weight of the evidence was against the plaintiffs. However this may have been, an examination of the record discloses sufficient testimony to warrant a finding that the automobile went over an unrailed embankment, thereby causing the injuries complained of. The argument that the plaintiff who was driving the car was guilty of contributory negligence, is not supported by conclusive proof that ordinary men would not have acted as he did in the premises. Therefore it cannot avail the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Blood v. New BostonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1915
3Cited by3 opinions
- Hussey v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1926
- Kelsea v. StratfordSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1919
- Bridgham v. EffinghamSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1933