Parker v. Marvell
Parker v. Marvell.
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
BlN<jj^J\í, J.
The arrangement was a secret inference of law.
Coburn v. Pickering, pson, 43 N. H. 130;
Coolidge v. Me Stockwell, 55 N. H. 561;
Cutting v. Jackson, 56 N.
Holmes, 58 N. H. 293;
Flagg v. Pierce, 58 N. no satisfactory explanation of the vendor’s posses-was in Towne v. Rice, 59 N. H. 412, and French v. Hall, 9 H. 137 . The wagon was used by the vendor for more than a yeai\ and from ordinary observation a neighbor or creditor would have supposed it to be the vendor’s property.
Judgment for the plaintiff.
Allen, J.,. did not sit: the others concurred.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.