Mullen v. Merchants Nat. Bank
| Decision Date | 07 April 1936 |
| Parties | MULLEN v. MERCHANTS NAT. BANK. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Superior Court, Hillsborough County; Burque, Judge.
Action on the case by Peter Mullen against the Merchants National Bank, trustee. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings exception.
Exception overruled.
Case, to recover for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff on May 26, 1931, at Manchester, when he fell from a window of the defendant's building. At the time of the accident the plaintiff was in the employ of William Jones, who had a contract with the defendant to paint the building in question. The declaration alleges that the accident was "due to a hidden defect in one of the windows, which defect was known or should have been known to the defendant."
On March 31, 1932, the plaintiff brought a petition against Jones for compensation under Pub.Laws c. 178. The case was settled by the company, which insured Jones against liability to his employees on April 30, 1932, and at that time the plaintiff signed two documents; one the customary receipt for final payment under the Workmen's Compensation Act; the other a "Receipt and Release" (referred to in the opinion as the release), in which the plaintiff acknowledged the payment of $3,000 "Comp" [compensation] plus the payment of medical bills for the first fourteen days (Pub.Laws, c. 178, § 13) "to be in full settlement, accord and satisfaction of a disputed claim growing out of a bodily injury" sustained by him on or about May 26, 1931. This document contained a certificate signed by the plaintiff's attorney to the effect that the plaintiff signed the release in the attorney's presence and stated "that he understood it fully released and discharged all claims of every kind."
The defendant moved to dismiss the present action, alleging that it was brought for the same injuries for which the plaintiff had sought recovery under his petition for compensation and that the releases executed in settlement thereof inured to the defendant's benefit and barred "any further claim by said plaintiff, Peter Mullen, for injuries growing out of said accident."
The motion was heard by Burque, J., who, after finding various facts, construed the "Receipt and Release" to be binding on the plaintiff in his present suit and ordered judgment to be entered for the defendant. The case is transferred on the plaintiff's exception to this order.
Chretien & Craig and O'Connor & Saidel, all of Manchester, for plaintiff.
Wyman, Starr, Booth, Wadleigh & Langdell, of Manchester, for defendant.
No question is raised as to the scope of the plaintiff's general exception to the court's order, and it is understood that the entire question of construction is here for consideration. The interpretation of the instruments in controversy necessitates the ascertainment of the plaintiff's intention, and that intention is to be gathered from the two documents construed together in the light of the conduct and language of the parties to the instruments and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mossman v. Chicago & Southern Air Lines
... ... all states, so that claim under Missouri act is barred ... Mullen v. Merchants Nat. Bank (N.H. Sup.), 184 A ... 565, 566; McFarland v. Mo ... ...
-
Burke v. Burnham
...R.L. c. 355, § 12. It follows that the entire settlement should be credited against the defendant's liability. Mullen v. Merchants Nat. Bank, 88 N.H. 90, 184 A. 565. The situation of this case differs from that presented by Holland v. Morley Button Company, 83 N.H. 482, 145 A. 142. There bo......