Taylor v. Jewell
| Citation | 98 N.H. 331,100 A.2d 905 |
| Parties | TAYLOR v. JEWELL et al. |
| Decision Date | 30 November 1953 |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
William H. Sleeper and Wayne J. Mullaney, Exeter, for plaintiff.
Burns, Calderwood & Bryant and Robert E. Hinchey, Dover, for defendant Jewell.
Perkins & Holland, Exeter, for defendant Taylor
In his supplemental opening the plaintiff stated, among other things, that the speed of the defendants was too fast under all the circumstances and that it caused or helped to cause the collision. He further alleged that the defendants failed to keep a reasonable and careful lookout and failed to keep to the right of the center of the traveled part of the way. Treating this statement 'as though the evidence offered had been introduced', Charpentier v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 91 N.H. 38, 40, 13 A.2d 141, 142, there is no doubt that defendants' motions for nonsuit were then properly denied. Couture v. Woodworth, 97 N.H. 344, 345, 88 A.2d 827.
The defendants take the position, however, that there was an agreement made by plaintiff's attorney in open court that the Trial Court could rule on their motions for a nonsuit after his original opening and that it should have been enforced. Johnson v. National Biscuit Co., 96 N.H. 44, 49, 69 A.2d 703.
The pertinent parts of the record relating thereto are as follows: 'Court: He is entitled to amend before the ruling against him he can tell the acts if he wishes to do so. Court: * * * you want me (to) rule on the situation as it is at present? Mr. Sleeper: Well, yes. [Opening statement read by stenographer] Mr. Sleeper: I think I could add to my opening statement. Mr. Calderwood: I understood he asked the Court to rule on the present status of the opening statement. Mr. Sleeper: I should like to ask the Court to reopen the opening, naming several grounds of negligence under the statute and what we claim is the common-law duties. Court: Go ahead. Court: I think you better make a choice. If I am going to rule you're not going to reopen after I rule. Mr. Sleeper: You said to go ahead. I would like to go ahead.
We fail to see in the above 'a contract made by him in court,' Burtman v. Butman, 94 N.H. 412, 415, 54 A.2d 367, 370, or a 'bargain' made between the parties kept by the defendants and to which the plaintiff should be held. Johnson v. National Biscuit Co., supra.
There is nothing in the record to show that the Court abused his discretion in permitting the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sullivan v. Indian Head Nat. Bank
...leave to amend whether a request therefor was made at the hearing or not. Bacon v. Thompson, 87 N.H. 270, 177 A. 548. See Taylor v. Jewell, 98 N.H. 331, 100 A.2d 905. Exceptions All concurred. ...
-
Scammon v. Page
...ground of absence of any causal negligence. While the Trial Court has discretionary power to allow supplemental openings (Taylor v. Jewell, 98 N.H. 331, 100 A.2d 905) he is not obligated to give counsel unlimited oppotunities, in this respect. The plaintiffs' opening statement to the effect......
-
Carr v. Merrimack Farmers Exchange, Inc.
...upon that evidence there is a case for submission.' Charpentier v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 91 N.H. 38, 13 A.2d 141, 142; Taylor v. Jewell, 98 N.H. 331, 332, 100 A.2d 905. In passing upon defendant's motion for nonsuit, the Court must consider the evidence as true and consider all the evidenc......