Legal Opinion

Hazen v. P. H. Rice Corp.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided November 1, 1938PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWoodbury, J.

There are two reasons why the plaintiff’s motion must be denied. In the first place the challenges in each instance are not for principal cause but are to the favor, (State v. Howard, 17 N. H. 171, 190, et seq; Wood v. Wood, 52 N. H. 422, 429; State v. Perkins, 70 N. H. 330), and so present not a question of law for this court but one of fact for the court below, which question by necessary inference from the general denial of the plaintiff’s motions for a new trial, was there decided adversely to him. Lavigne v. Lavigne, 80 N. H. 559, 561, and cases cited.

In the second place the plaintiff…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Shulinsky v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1927
  2. State v. PerkinsSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1900
  3. Bickford v. FranconiaSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1905
  4. Roberts v. Claremont Power Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1917
  5. Lavigne v. LavigneSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1923

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Merriam v. Town of SalemSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1972
  2. Piper v. FlaggSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1943
  3. State v. ProctorSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1938

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

Powered by the Exa API