Legal Opinion

Boucher v. Namasket Co.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided December 3, 1940No. 3190PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMarble, J.

An experienced machinist, familiar with all kinds of textile machinery, examined the belt on which the plaintiff was injured. He testified in part as follows:

“Q. Is there anything about a belt with clipper fasteners that would cause it to grab garments and cause it to pull them toward the belt. A. Yes. ... If the fastener was inserted on one side of the belt more than the other, if not placed in the center and . . . equally divided on each end. Q. What would happen? A. It would leave an opening of greater space on one side of the belt . . . where something might catch in it. Q. Suppose the…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Vidal v. ErrolSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1932
  2. Emery v. Tilo Roofing Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1937
  3. Perreault v. Allen Oil Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1935
  4. Kruger v. Exeter Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1930
  5. Goldstein v. United Amusement Corp.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1933

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Blais v. Flanders Hardware Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1945
  2. Isabelle v. Crystal Laundry, Inc.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1945

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

Powered by the Exa API