Chabot v. Shiner.
| Decision Date | 03 November 1948 |
| Citation | 61 A.2d 791 |
| Parties | CHABOT v. SHINER. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Hillsborough County; Lampron, Judge.
Bill in equity by Elaine Chabot against Otis Shiner to reform a deed. Transferred upon defendant's exceptions to rulings of law, to the denial of defendant's requests for findings of fact and rulings of law, and to denial of defendant's motion to set aside the decree as against the weight of the evidence and that the petition be dismissed.
Exceptions overruled.
Bill in Equity to reform a deed. Trial by the Court, (Lampron, J.) who entered a decree of reformation in accordance with the prayer of the bill.
The plaintiff conveyed certain property in Manchester to the defendant on August 8, 1945, by deed warranting the premises free from all incumbrances except taxes. In fact, at the time of the conveyance, there was an outstanding lease with approximately four years to run. Said lease was recorded and its existence was personally known to both the plaintiff and the defendant. The bill alleges that the plaintiff intended to sell the property subject to said lease and that the defendant intended to purchase the same subject to said lease; that the deed in question was prepared by the Manchester Federal Savings and Loan Association and that said bank ‘made a mistake in preparing and drawing said deed and did fail to make the same subject to the lease aforesaid’; that said deed, therefore, ‘fails to express the agreement of the parties thereto.’ Wherefore the plaintiff prays ‘that her deed to Otis F. Shiner be reformed by making it subject to said lease.’ Transferred upon the defendant's exceptions to certain rulings of law; to the denial of defendant's requests for findings of fact and rulings of law, and to the denial of his motion to set aside the decree as against the weight of the evidence and that the petition be dismissed.
Maurice A. Broderick, of Manchester, for plaintiff.
Sheehan, Phinney & Bass and Wm. L. Phinney, all of Manchester, for defendant.
It was the contention of the plaintiff throughout these proceedings that she intended to sell the property in question subject to the lease and that the defendant intended to purchase the same subject to said lease. The trial, therefore, turned upon the crucial question of the intention of the defendant when he made the purchase. It is the present contention of the defendant that ‘A careful examination of the record fails to disclose the slightest basis for a finding that Shiner intended to take the deed subject to the lease except for the unsupported testimony of Mr. Chabot.’ The defendant further argues as follows: ‘Leaving out of consideration the testimony of the parties and their respective wife and husband which may fairly be said to be testimony from interested sources, the balance of the evidence clearly shows that not only Shiner, but the Chabots as well, intended to cancel the lease.’ This argument might well have been addressed to the Trial Court, but carries little weight in this Court. The plaintiff's husband testified as follows:
Mr. Chabot further testified upon cross-examination as follows, and this is the testimony referred to by the defendant in the defendant's brief above quoted:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Flanagan v. Prudhomme
...and the Prudhommes' lots to properly reflect the intentions of the parties to the original conveyance. See Chabot v. Shiner, 95 N.H. 252, 255, 61 A.2d 791, 793 (1948); Searles v. Churchill, 69 N.H. 530, 43 A. 184 (1898). In general, boundaries established by abutter calls take precedence ov......
-
Patey v. Peaslee
...Since the order permitted the amendment, a preliminary order vacating the judgment of dismissal is to be implied. See Chabot v. Shiner, 95 N.H. 252, 255, 61 A.2d 791. Such an order was within the authority of the court. Lyford v. Trustees of Berwick Academy, 97 N.H. 167, 83 A.2d 302, 31 A.L......
-
McLaughlin v. Union-Leader Corp.
...to observe this elementary rule of law. On the contrary, all presumptions are in favor of the legality of its action. Chabot v. Shiner, 95 N.H. 252, 255, 61 A.2d 791; Lupien v. Rousseau, 98 N.H. 459, 460, 102 A.2d 502. As we have previously stated the Court's findings are 'entitled to great......
-
Allison v. Brown & Horsch Insulation Co.
...by the master and since the general conclusions were supported by the evidence, these requests were properly denied. Chabot v. Shiner, 95 N.H. 252, 61 A.2d 791. Other requests for specific findings, where the testimony was conflicting and where the master could properly make contrary findin......