TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Goodwin v. Scott

Goodwin v. Scott.

Goodwin v. Scott, 61 N.H. 112 (1881)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of New Hampshire · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 5, 1881
Judges
Smith
Citations
61 N.H. 112
Cited by 3
Headnotes
In a ease tried by a referee, the qualification of a witness to give his opinion of the value of property is a question of fact to be determined at the trial. Case, for kindling a fire at an improper time, whereby the plaintiff’s sugar-place was damaged. The cause was heard by referees, who found the defendant guilty, and assessed the plaintiff’s damages. The following testimony was admitted, subject to the defendant’s exception: Kichard Lane testified: “I owned the Goodwin lot fifteen years ago. At that time I was over pretty much the whole of the lot: there were maple-trees upon it. The growth was rock-maple, beech, and spruce on the high ground, and a small growth of soft wood on the low land. I was on the lot the last of February or first of March last, so I could see most of the burnt district. Most, of the hard-wood land was burned over. I can’t tell what proportion of the standing trees was burned, but there was a pretty heavy growth when I saw it, and there was a large lot taken off. The growth on the burnt piece was pretty heavy — a good deal more hard wood than spruce. From my knowledge of the sale of other wild land in the town of Whitefield, I think the value of this lot,, as 1 saw it after the fire, was $800.” Wm. F. Dodge testified: “I did not notice whether most of the-trees were killed. 1 should have considered the trees valuable if I had owned them. I got some wood and dry plank that were valuable.”
Summary
The plaintiff testified: “ The distance from the lot to my farm is one mile and a half round the road- — one half mile across. I have no other sugar-lot. I have a small piece of wood-land that will cut about twenty-five cords.” The referees reported that they made personal examination upon the lot, and that the above testimony had no influence upon them in their assessment of damages. The court ordered judgment upon the report, and the defendant excepted.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Smith

Smith, J.

Opinions of witnesses as to value may be received as evidence thereof when it appears to the court that they are qualified to judge of such value. G. L., e.

228, s. 23. Whether a witness is qualified to judge of the value of property in litigation, is a question of fact to be determined at the trial.

Jones v. Tucker, 41 N. H. 546;

Taylor v. Ins. Co., 51 N. H. 50. The question is one that can be most conveniently and satisfactorily determined at the trial, upon personal examination of the witness, and generally can be determined in no other way.

Dole v. Johnson, 50 N. H. 452, 459. Upon an appeal from the assessment of a tax, the question whether a witness is qualified to testify as to value is determined by the commissioners to whom the appeal is referred. For the same reasons the question is determined by referees in trials before them.

It is an answer to the defendant’s exceptions, however, that the evidence excepted to was ruled out and disregarded by the ref *115 erees. When evidence is ruled out in jury trials, the jury are instructed to disregard it. In such cases its admission furnishes no ground for a new trial, unless there is reason to believe that the evidence improperly influenced the verdict.

Deerfield v. North wood, 10 N. H. 269;

Hamblett, v. Hamblett, 6 N. H. 334;

Eastman v. Amoskeag Co., 44 N. H. 143;

Judge of Probate v. Stone, 44 N. H. 593, 607;

Zollar v. Janvrin, 47 N. H. 324, 326;

Burnham v. Butler, 58 N. H. 568. It was not found as a fact, at the trial term, that injustice was done by the evidence admitted by the referees, and it is not necessary to inquire whether the evidence was competent.

Exceptions overruled.

All concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 3 cases

View all citing references →
1899: 21911: 118992026peak 1899 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Burnham v. Stillings79 A. 987 (N.H. 1911)
  2. Chapman v. Tiffany47 A. 603 (N.H. 1899)
  3. Stevens v. Fellows47 A. 135 (N.H. 1899)

Most recent

  1. Burnham v. Stillings79 A. 987 (N.H. 1911)
  2. Chapman v. Tiffany47 A. 603 (N.H. 1899)
  3. Stevens v. Fellows47 A. 135 (N.H. 1899)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Burnham v. Butler, 58 N.H. 568 (1879) 8

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list