Smith v. Pope
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
1Opinion of the CourtDuncan, J.
The defendant maintains that the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover because there is no finding that the defendant made any intentional misrepresentations, because she was under no duty to disclose that kerosene had leaked into the well some years previously, and because it was found that the plaintiffs themselves were contributorily negligent.
While there was no finding of intentional misrepresentation in so many words, there were findings that the defendant believed that kerosene “had come into the artesian well,” that she “did not disclose . . . that the cause of [the] mineral taste was…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Swinton v. Whitinsville Savings BankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1942
- Gilbert v. DodgeSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1931
3Cited by20 opinions
- Field v. MansSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Invest Almaz v. Temple-Inland Forest Products Corp.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2001
- Lock v. SchrepplerSuperior Court of Delaware · 1981
- Franchey v. HannesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1965
- Anchorage Chrysler Center, Inc. v. Daimlerchrysler Corp.Alaska Supreme Court · 2006
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.