Gould v. Hutchins
Gould v. Hutchins.
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
Walker, J.
As the case is understood, the trial judge ruled' that the experimental evidence offered by the defendant, of the liability of the ice to frighten horses, was as a matter of law incompetent. In view of the settled law of this state (Darling v. Westmoreland, 52 N. H. 401;
Gordon v. Railroad, 58 N. H. 396; D ow v. Weare, 68 N. H. 345;
Folsom v. Railroad, 68 N. H. 454, 461), the evidence was clearly competent, unless it was too remote-as a matter of fact. But as the evidence was not excluded upon the ground of remoteness, but because legally incompetent (Challis v. Lake, 71 N. H. 90, 95;
Watson v. Twombly, 60 N. H. 491, 493), the order must be, Exception sustained.
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 →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.