Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

79 N.H. 331

109 A 44

Rollins v. Brock

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided January 6, 1920

Supreme Court of New Hampshire · decided 1920-01-06

Bill in Equity, for the specific performance of an oral agreement. This is the same case reported in 78 N. H. 456. After that opinion was handed down the defendant was permitted to file a cross-bill alleging that the agreement was procured by fraud. The court found for Rollins, and, upon Brock’s disclaimer of an intention to redeem, ordered that his right be foreclosed.

Decided 1920-01-06

Young, J.

¶1 Whether the judgment should be conditional or absolute is a question of fact, not law; that is, it depends on the facts of this case. The question, therefore, raised by the defendant’s exception is whether there is any evidence to warrant the court’s finding that justice requires the decree be absolute. The defendant disclaimed any intention of redeeming the property, so instead of there being no evidence to sustain the court’s finding, that is the only conclusion of which the evidence is fairly capable.

¶2 Exception overruled.

All concurred.
/79/nh/331 · .json · Public domain