Legal Opinion
Hope Shoe Co. v. Advance Wood Heel Co.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Decided December 7, 1937PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPage, J.
It is understood that no question is raised as to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the referee’s findings. The evidence as to title was not made a part of the record, and no contention as to its sufficiency was raised at any point in the proceedings.
The real question for decision is whether, as a matter of law, the findings of the referee establish that title to the shoes rested, on November 19, 1929, in the plaintiffs or the Madian Shoe Company. The decision calls for an interpretation of the referee’s report.
The salient parts of the report appear to be the following: “The…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Hauselt v. HarrisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Powder Co. v. BurkhardtSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Sattler v. . HallockNew York Court of Appeals · 1899
- Mack v. . SnellNew York Court of Appeals · 1893
- Dittmar v. NormanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1875
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Behr Venture Partners v. Bedford Computer Corp. (In Re Bedford Computer Corp.)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Hampshire · 1986
- York v. MisiakSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1949