Legal Opinion
Hould v. Maryland Casualty Co.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Decided January 2, 1929PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPeaslee, C. J.
The decree for reformation is attacked as being unsupported by sufficient evidence. In furtherance of this claim use is made of the unquestioned rule that in such cases there must be “ ‘a plain mistake, clearly made out by satisfactory proofs’ (1 Sto. Eq. Juris., s. 157).” Searles v. Churchill, 69 N. H. 530, 531.
If there was evidence from which a finding in favor of the plaintiff could be made under this rule, this objection is untenable. The facts that the evidence was conflicting and solution of the problem difficult do not bar the relief sought. Searles v. Churchill, supra.
The issue was…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Duval v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1927
- Bennett v. LaroseSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1926
- Barrett v. CadySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1915
- Barrette v. Casualty Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1918
- Page Belting Co. v. PrinceSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1914
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- McCabe v. ArcidySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1993
- Metropolitan Casualty Ins. Co. of New York v. FriedleyDistrict Court, N.D. Iowa · 1948
- Grabowski v. GrabowskiSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1980
- Cote v. CoteSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1947
- Ricard v. Prudential Insurance Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1934
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.