Thomas Littlefield Marble

This case involves a divorce action (libel) filed in New Hampshire by the libelant against the libelee, following an earlier Massachusetts decree granting separate support. The court determined that while the current pleadings technically support jurisdiction due to the alleged residence period, the libelee is entitled to dismissal upon filing an appropriate plea. The core reasoning is that the issues in both proceedings are essentially identical, the Massachusetts decree remains valid with no subsequent changes, and the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution bars the libelant from asserting that the separation resulted from the libelee's fault.

family lawfederal powerprocedure

The case concerned the interpretation of a will that placed property in trust for ten years of accumulation before distribution to Ethel Redman, with her executor claiming the interest after her death. The court held that Redman’s interest vested immediately upon the testator’s death and was therefore transmissible to her estate. It rejected the “divide and pay over” rule as a canon of construction never adopted in New Hampshire and unsupported by the will’s terms, noting the absence of any gift over and the possibility of earlier payments as evidence of immediate vesting. The trustees were instructed to pay the fund to Redman’s husband as executor.

property

This case concerned a residuary clause in a will directing that a trust fund be given to a strictly Protestant charitable institution in Rochester, New Hampshire. No such institution existed in Rochester at the time of the testatrix's death. The court held that the cy pres doctrine should be applied to carry out the testatrix's general charitable intent by allowing the trustees to select a qualifying Protestant institution located elsewhere in the state. The core reasoning was that the will showed no intent for the gift to fail or revert to heirs if no local institution existed, the specific location was not paramount, and the testatrix had used reverter language elsewhere when desired; the chosen institution must still limit the funds' use to Rochester residents.

propertyreligious liberty

This case concerned a petition to annul a marriage entered into by parties below New Hampshire's statutory age of consent, although the ceremony took place outside the state. The court held that New Hampshire's superior court has jurisdiction to consider such an annulment. The core reasoning was that the state of domicile has a substantial interest in the marital status of its residents and may annul a marriage that contravenes its public policy, as expressed in the 1923 statute allowing discretionary annulment of underage marriages while protecting any children born before the decree.

family lawprocedure

The case concerned whether a defendant in a landlord-tenant action brought under Revised Laws chapter 413 could appeal a municipal court judgment to the Superior Court. The court held that the defendant retained the right to appeal within the two-hour window provided by chapter 413 section 20. The reasoning was that chapter 377 section 20, which makes municipal court factual findings final in larger cities, applies only to ordinary civil damage actions and not to summary proceedings to recover possession of real estate; appeals in tenant actions remain available by statute even though they are not constitutionally guaranteed.

propertyprocedure

This case concerned whether an insurance endorsement issued to cover a driver on a New Hampshire vacation trip provided liability protection when the insured was sued by his wife for injuries from an accident in New Hampshire. The court ruled for the defendants, finding coverage in effect. The core reasoning was that the parties contemplated performance of the contract in New Hampshire, the endorsement's terms and designated place of execution in New Jersey controlled, and the policy's conformity clause required compliance with New Hampshire financial responsibility law, which permits such suits between spouses, overriding any contrary rules from New York or New Jersey.

torts & liabilityfamily lawbusiness & regulatory

The case concerned a challenge to a New Hampshire statute (Laws 1945, c. 185) that limited the rates newspapers could charge for political advertising, enacted as part of laws regulating expenditures to prevent corrupt practices in elections. The dissenting opinion concluded that the rate-limiting provision was invalid under the state and federal constitutions. The core reasoning was that newspaper publication is a private enterprise not affected with a public interest, so the legislature could not fix its rates by fiat; even if the law had some relation to curbing corruption, its arbitrary features—such as setting rates without regard to added labor or libel risks and without a reasonableness determination—rendered it unconstitutional under the Due Process Clauses and state Bill of Rights.

electionsfree speechbusiness & regulatory

This case involves a personal injury lawsuit by a mill worker who lost her hand while operating multiple wood-turning lathes equipped with hoppers and knives. The court held that the trial judge properly denied the defendant's motions, allowing the jury to decide issues of negligence, contributory negligence, and assumption of risk. The core reasoning was that the employer could be found negligent for failing to install guards on the machines or warn the plaintiff about the danger of manually pressing blocks past the safety catch, especially given her limited mental capacity, the speed required to tend five machines, and the known common practice of such actions in the mill. However, a new trial was ordered because evidence of guards installed after the accident was improperly admitted at trial.

torts & liabilitylabor & employmentprocedure

This case concerned whether a sawmill operation was covered by New Hampshire’s Employers’ Liability and Workmen’s Compensation Act, which applies only when five or more workmen are employed by a common employer. The plaintiff, one of four members of a mill crew, argued that the Act should apply because the defendant operated multiple portable sawmills as a single enterprise. The court held that the Act applied to the Atkinson mill. It reasoned that the four crew members plus at least two pitmen who regularly stacked boards at that location constituted six workmen employed in the defendant’s regular sawing business, meeting the statutory threshold regardless of whether employees across all mills could be aggregated.

labor & employment

In Scott v. Davis, a taxpayer appealed a city government's decision to amend a zoning ordinance at the request of property owner Mr. Davis, who sought to relocate a funeral home to a new site. Under the state Zoning Act (R. L., c. 51, ss. 64-69), the Superior Court reviewed the amendment on appeal, treating it similarly to decisions by boards of adjustment and requiring the proponents to prove a public need rather than personal benefit. The court found that the evidence presented focused on the private advantages of the new location and the sale of the property, without substantial support for broader public interest. As a result, the court set aside the city's decision but allowed the appellees to file a new petition. The appeal was sustained, with one justice dissenting.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case concerned heirs of Jennie A. Deery who filed a bill in equity to annul deeds she had executed conveying real estate to her husband Edward A. Deery, claiming that she lacked mental capacity and that he had procured the deeds through fraud and undue influence to obtain the entire estate as surviving joint tenant rather than a statutory portion. The court sustained the demurrer to the bill. Title passed to the husband immediately upon the wife's death by right of survivorship in joint tenancy, rendering any release of curtesy or homestead unnecessary, and the deeds were voidable rather than void even if the husband's knowledge of her incompetence was shown. The bill was dismissed because it failed to allege when the alleged fraud was discovered or to explain the apparent unreasonable delay in filing suit until after both parties had died, which the court held constituted laches barring equitable relief.

propertyprocedure

The case concerns the effect of a 1937 statutory amendment on the evidentiary rule from the Johnson case regarding unlicensed drivers in motor vehicle matters. The court determined that the amendment was intended only to modify the prior rule, making an operator's lack of a license immaterial if the operator is found fit to drive but material if the operator is found unfit or fails to rebut a presumption of unfitness. This interpretation draws on the analysis in Straut v. Carpenter, which clarified the limited scope of the legislative change. The ruling therefore preserves the Johnson rule's application in cases where unfitness is established while limiting its reach where fitness is shown.

torts & liability

This case involved an employee's claim for personal injuries after she slipped from a stool while performing work at the defendant's store. The trial court ordered a nonsuit based on assumption of risk after the plaintiff's opening statement, and the Supreme Court affirmed that ruling on appeal. The court reasoned that to avoid the common-law assumption-of-risk defense under the Employers’ Liability and Workmen’s Compensation Act, the plaintiff was required to reference the statute in her declaration or opening, which she did not do; therefore ordinary common-law principles applied and the recited facts showed the risk was obvious. The court further held that a separate regulatory statute on employee health and safety did not create a private right of action.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a plaintiff seeking restitution of property allegedly held in constructive trust by a deceased testator from the estate's representative. The court decided that the plaintiff's action was barred by the two-year statute of limitations for suits against administrators, as the suit was not filed within that period, and the trial court's finding of culpable neglect precluded any extension. The reasoning centered on the statutes' purpose to ensure orderly settlement of estates, applying the limitations to equitable claims like constructive trusts, with exceptions only if justice requires and no culpable neglect.

propertyprocedure

The case involved a negligence claim arising from an accident in which the defendant's car struck and injured the plaintiff's young child near cottages by Darrah Pond in Litchfield. The court upheld the jury verdict for the plaintiff, concluding that the defendant was negligent in failing to discover the child's presence before driving forward. Evidence showed the defendant knew children frequently played in the area between the cottages and house A, yet her testimony about looking for children and the location of her own child could be found inconsistent or untrue. The court reasoned that if the defendant had looked as carefully as claimed, she would have seen the unattended children, and that she failed to exercise the reasonable care required by the circumstances before moving her vehicle.

torts & liability

This case involved a brakeman for the Suncook Valley Railroad who was injured when crushed between his train car and a boxcar left on a sidetrack with insufficient clearance. The plaintiff had violated a company rule requiring him to stand on the rear platform while the train backed up, instead riding on a side step due to weather conditions. The court upheld the jury verdict for the plaintiff under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, reasoning that the rule violation did not bar recovery since the rule was not designed to address clearance risks, the railroad knew of the common practice of riding on the step, and the railroad was negligent in placing the boxcar without adequate space. Contributory negligence by the plaintiff would only reduce damages rather than prevent recovery entirely.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

The case concerned a negligence claim arising from a car accident on an overhead railroad bridge, where plaintiffs alleged that the defendant's nine-inch wooden wheel guard was insufficient to prevent the vehicle from leaving the road, unlike a twelve-inch curb that expert testimony indicated would have stopped the car even under icy conditions. The court addressed multiple trial errors, including the admission of a writ from a related action against the railroad on the issue of a witness's credibility and the introduction of a transcript question assuming facts not in evidence about another bridge's curb height. It also examined jury instructions on whether approval by the State Highway Department or compliance with federal and industry standards could relieve the railroad of liability or serve as evidence of due care. The court held that these evidentiary rulings and the failure to instruct the jury properly on the relevance of standards required setting aside the verdicts, while reaffirming that the question of causal negligence remained for the jury. New trials were therefore ordered.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a dispute over liability for fire damage to goods stored by the plaintiff in a storehouse leased from the defendant. The defendant had hired an independent contractor to repair the building after an initial fire, and the contractor's use of an acetylene torch caused a second fire that damaged the plaintiff's property. The court upheld the jury's verdict in favor of the plaintiff, reasoning that the work was inherently dangerous, making the defendant responsible for the contractor's negligence despite the independent contractor relationship. The court also found that a lease provision purporting to exempt the defendant from liability for fire damage did not bar recovery for negligence, as such clauses are void against public policy.

torts & liabilityproperty

The case involved a bicycle rider who was injured when he collided with a stationary milk wagon on a public street early in the morning. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were negligent for failing to equip the wagon with lights as required by statute and for positioning the wagon improperly on the road. The court entered judgment for the defendants, holding that the evidence did not establish that the lack of a wagon light caused the collision, given the presence of a bright streetlight, the plaintiff's ability to see 30-40 feet ahead, and his testimony that he was looking to the side rather than straight ahead until it was too late. The court also found no breach of the duty of ordinary care in the wagon's brief stop on the right side of the road near the intersection during low-traffic hours.

torts & liability

The case concerned whether a prior ruling allowing equitable set-off or counterclaims against nonresident plaintiffs applied in a replevin action, where the defendant sought to assert a claim arising from the same contract as the property dispute. The court held that the rule from Arcadia Mills v. Company was applicable, permitting the defendant's pleas for affirmative relief despite the general limitations on counterclaims in possessory actions. The reasoning emphasized that nonresidence creates special circumstances justifying equitable intervention to avoid the hardship of foreign litigation, that replevin actions have flexibility to adjust equities between parties when claims stem from the same transaction, and that recoupment is allowed even without a specific statute when it promotes convenience and avoids multiple suits. The court noted that separate judgments could result but found this acceptable under precedents, answering the transferred question in the affirmative.

procedureproperty