Legal Opinion

Hersey v. Hutchins

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided December 5, 1899PublishedCited by 7 opinions

The defendant testified that one Buck, a former agent of the defendant’s grantor, had been present at the trial, at the defendant’s request, but was allowed to depart without testifying. Subject to exception, the plaintiff’s counsel argued that this showed that the defendant could get no aid from Buck’s testimony.

Read the full summary

The defendant testified that one Buck, a former agent of the defendant’s grantor, had been present at the trial, at the defendant’s request, but was allowed to depart without testifying. Subject to exception, the plaintiff’s counsel argued that this showed that the defendant could get no aid from Buck’s testimony. There was evidence that the defendant employed three surveyors upon the disputed territory, who made numerous and elaborate plans, and that he once said to the plaintiff, in a conversation with her about this land: “ Well, I would n’t go to law about it; it takes money to handle…

1Opinion of the CourtPeaslee, J.

The instruction as to adverse possession was properly refused, there being no evidence to which it applied. “ A judge is not bound to instruct the jury upon an abstract proposition ; and before he can be required to give particular instructions, there must be evidence, relevant and pertinent, on which to found them.” Woodman v. Northwood, 67 N. H. 307, 309.

The plaintiff’s argument as to the inference to be drawn from the defendant’s failure to call accessible witnesses was not objectionable. Mitchell v. Railroad, 68 N. H. 96, 117.

The argument that the plaintiff, having small means, could not…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Murray v. ChaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1883

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. State v. FosterSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1921
  2. Challis v. LakeSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1901
  3. Osgood v. MaxwellSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1915
  4. Lord v. Manchester Street RailwaySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1907
  5. Hazen v. P. H. Rice Corp.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1938

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API