Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1935-06-04
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently June 1975
7 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
¶2
The plaintiff invokes in support of his motion the rule announced in
Spaulding
v.
Mayo,
81 N. H. 85, 86, and approved in
LaMarre
v.
LaMarre,
84 N. H. 553 and
Vidal
v.
Errol,
86 N. H. 585, that “The general finding for the plaintiff includes a finding of all the special facts necessary to sustain it .. . unless it appears from the special findings that that is not the case.”
¶3
The present case falls within the exception noted. Even if it can be said that the special findings are not actually inconsistent with the general findings, it appears that the trial court either has ignored the obvious legal and factual implications of the special facts found or has based his general findings on them.
Hatch
v.
Hillsgrove,
83 N. H. 91, 98; Hening’s Digest,
p.
1250. See also
Sonabend
v.
Charron,
86 N.H. 386, 388.
