TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Burnham v. Butler

Burnham v. Butler.

Burnham v. Butler, 58 N.H. 568 (1879)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of New Hampshire · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 5, 1879
Judges
Smith, Stanley
Citations
58 N.H. 568
Headnotes
Evidence, admitted upon the undertaking of counsel to make it competent, and withdrawn with the consent of the court, is not a cause for a new trial unless the jury were prejudiced by it. Whether the jury were prejudiced by it is a question of fact to be determined at the trial term.
Summary
Assumpsit, on a promissory note given by the defendant to one W., and by him endorsed to the plaintiff. The defendant contended that one C. was an accomplice of W. in obtaining the note from the defendant by fraud, and introduced evidence of a conversation between C. and a son of the defendant, tending to show an admission by C. to that effect. The plaintiff objected to this evidence, but it was received, the defendant undertaking to make it competent. After its reception lie admitted that it was not competent, and offered to withdraw it. It was thereupon ruled out, and the jury were instructed to disregard it. It did not appear, except from the nature of the testimony itself, that the jury were prejudiced by it. Verdict for the defendant, which the plaintiff moves to set aside.

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.

Evidence which proves to have been improperly admitted may be stricken out, under proper instructions to the jury; and it is a question of fact, to be determined at the trial term, when this may be done.

Judge of Probate v. Stone, 41 N. H. 598, 607;

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

Harris v. Holmes, 30 Vt. 352 . In his knowledge of the trial, the presiding justice has better means of deciding the question of fact than others can have who were not at the trial.

Fuller v. Bailey, 58 N. H. 71, 72;

Hamaker v. Eberley, 2 Binn. 506, 510 . If it appears to him, after verdict, that the jury have been prejudiced by the objectionable evidence, he is warranted in setting the verdict aside.

Case discharged.

Stanley, 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.

1881–1882: 21903–1904: 11911–1912: 11915–1916: 11917–1918: 11927–1928: 11937–1938: 118812026peak 1881 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Burnham v. Stillings79 A. 987 (N.H. 1911)
  2. Lee v. Dow59 A. 374 (N.H. 1904)
  3. Doe v. Lucy139 A. 750 (N.H. 1927)
  4. Fuller v. Maine Central Railroad100 A. 546 (N.H. 1917)
  5. Merrill v. Perkins61 N.H. 262 (1881)
  6. Goodwin v. Scott61 N.H. 112 (1881)

Most recent

  1. Brown v. Smith193 A. 224 (N.H. 1937)
  2. Doe v. Lucy139 A. 750 (N.H. 1927)
  3. Fuller v. Maine Central Railroad100 A. 546 (N.H. 1917)
  4. Flaherty v. Manchester Street Railway99 A. 89 (N.H. 1916)
  5. Burnham v. Stillings79 A. 987 (N.H. 1911)
  6. Lee v. Dow59 A. 374 (N.H. 1904)

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
Hamaker v. Eberley, 2 Binn. 506 (1810) 7
Harris v. Holmes, 30 Vt. 352 (1858) 2

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