Lamarre v. Lamarre
| Decision Date | 05 November 1929 |
| Citation | 147 A. 747 |
| Parties | LAMARRE v. LAMARRE. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Superior Court, Hillsborough County; Young, Judge.
Action by Eugenie Lamarre against George Lamarre. Motion by insurer of defendant's liability to be allowed to defend action was granted, and plaintiff brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled.
Case, for negligent operation of an automobile. The insurer of the defendant's liability brought a bill to cancel the policy and during its pendency withdrew from the defense of the action. Upon the final dismissal of the bill, the parties to the action filed an agreement for a consent judgment for the plaintiff. The insurer moved to have the agreement set aside and to be allowed to defend the action, unless the plaintiff waived any rights' she had to enforce the policy. On hearing, the court granted the motion, and the plaintiff excepted. Transferred by Young, J.
Banigan & Banigan and Edward W. Banigan, all of Manchester, for plaintiff.
O'Connor & Saidel and M. Saidel, all of Manchester, for insurer.
The validity of the trial court's order depends upon the evidence before it. That evidence has not been transferred. No findings appearing which make the order improper, all special findings necessary to justify it were presumably made. There is no presumption that special findings reported include all the findings made. It must affirmatively appear that they do before the question whether they are sufficient to sustain the general verdict or order can be considered. Spaulding v. Mayo, 81 N. H. 85, 122 A. 899. It follows that, so far as the record here shows, the court's duty in determining what justice required was properly performed. Petition of Burnham et al., 74 N. H. 492, 69 A. 720; Rand v. Anderson, 74 N. H. 601, 67 A. 1102; Strafford County v. Dover, 74 N. H. 601, 68 A. 1116; Currier v. Silkey, 79 N. H. 534, 112 A. 246; Eaton v. Clarke, 80 N. H. 586, 119 A. 924; Spaulding v. Mayo, supra; Gianaris v. Mangurian, 82 N. H. 558, 133 A. 446.
Exceptions overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rosenblum v. Judson Engineering Corp.
...of the documents and records sought by the motion all special findings necessary to justify it were made by the Court. LaMarre v. LaMarre, 84 N.H. 553, 147 A. 747. The defendants' contention that the order can be justified only if the Court found as a preliminary matter that the defendants ......
-
Lamarre v. Lamarre
...and case was reported. Plaintiff's exception to designated ruling and to order based thereon sustained, and case discharged. See, also, 147 A. 747. Case, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff while riding in the automobile of her husband, the defendant George L......
-
Lincoln v. Langley
...when no findings appear which make an order improper, all special findings necessary to justify it were presumably made, LaMarre v. LaMarre, 84 N.H. 553, 147 A. 747, it is assumed that the order of the Trial Court was based on a finding that the defendants are unable properly to prepare the......
-
Mitchell v. Smith's Estate, 3038.
...warranted by the subsidiary findings and by proper inferences from the evidence consistent with the subsidiary findings. LaMarre v. LaMarre,' 84 N.H. 553, 147 A. 747, and cases The culpable neglect in the prosecution of a claim, as contemplated by the statute, is a faulty one, regardless of......