Legal Opinion

Tuftonboro v. Willard

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided February 1, 1938PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWoodbury, J.

The first part of the defendant’s motion raises the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the master’s findings and rulings, and in order to pass upon this issue we must consider the competency of the evidence upon which those findings and rulings are based.

The testimony concerning the existence and location of the faced wall referred to in the statement of facts was admissible to show the location of the westerly line of the highway. “The erection of a fence or wall as a permanent structure along the side of a wrought road is more probably than not intended to mark the line…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Drury v. Midland RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1879
  2. Randall v. ChaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1882
  3. Weld v. BrooksMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1890
  4. Morris v. CallananMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
  5. Boston Water Power Co. v. HanlonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1882

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Flanagan v. PrudhommeSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1994
  2. Anderson v. Town of East GreenwichSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1983
  3. Seely v. HandSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1979
  4. State Ex Rel. Thomson v. State Board of ParoleSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1975
  5. Davenhall v. CameronSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1976

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