Williams v. Duston
| Decision Date | 03 November 1920 |
| Docket Number | No. 1672.,1672. |
| Citation | 111 A. 690 |
| Parties | WILLIAMS v. DUSTON. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Superior Court, Rockingham County; Sawyer, Judge.
Trespass quære clausum by Hanna H. Williams against Fred K. Duston. There was a verdict for defendant, and plaintiff excepted. Exception to evidence sustained, verdict set aside, and new trial granted.
Trespass q. c. for cutting down and carrying away the wood and timber on certain lands in Chester. Trial by jury before Sawyer, J., with verdict for the defendant. The defendant admitted the entry and cutting, but claimed title to the timber under a deed from one Annie Head. At the close of the evidence the plaintiff moved the court to direct a verdict for her on the issue of title. This motion was denied, and the plaintiff excepted. Subject to exception the defendant was permitted to testify that after his purchase one Samuel Morse, husband of his grantor, showed him the bounds to which he later cut as the bounds between the Head land and land of the plaintiff.
Bartlett & Grinnell, of Derry (G. K. Bartlett, of Derry, orally), for plaintiff.
Scammon & Gardner, of Exeter (J. Scammon, of Exeter, orally), for defendant.
The lands owned by Annie Head and the plaintiff comprised a strip extending north and south between two highways in Chester. The question was where on the ground was the line of division between the adjoining lots; the plaintiff owning the northerly end, and the Head land comprising the southerly portion.
As Morse was living and could have been made a witness, hearsay testimony as to his statements as to the bounds was incompetent. Mason v. Knox, 66 N. H. 545, 27 Atl 505; Flagg v. Mason, 8 Gray (Mass.) 556 This error destroys the verdict.
The plaintiff excepts to the refusal to order a verdict for her. The burden was on the plaintiff to prove her title, or her possession of the land if the defendant had no title. This depended in this case upon the inferences to be drawn from several disconnected deeds which were in evidence, the indications upon the grounds of prior cutting and occupation, as to which there was conflict in the evidence, and the weight to be given the testimony of the plaintiff's witnesses. Only in exceptional cases may a verdict as matter of law be ordered in favor of one who has the burden of proof. Ordinarily in such cases the opposing party has the right to have the evidence weighed by the jury. For this reason a nonsuit is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hussey v. Boston & M. R. R.
...reasonably be drawn conclusively establishes the plaintiff's case that he is entitled to a verdict as matter of law." Williams v. Huston, 79 N. H. 490, 491, 111 A. 690, 691. In the present case, the inference of decedent's fault was not the only one suggested by the evidence. But the eviden......
-
Drop Anchor Realty Trust v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.
...if "the plaintiff offers no evidence from which reasonable men can infer the burden of proof has been sustained." Williams v. Duston, 79 N.H. 490, 491, 111 A. 690, 691 (1920). In reviewing the denial of a directed verdict, we "consider the evidence most favorable to the plaintiff." Sargent ......
-
LePage v. St. Johnsbury Trucking Co.
...reasonably be drawn conclusively establishes the plaintiff's case that he is entitled to a verdict as matter of law.' Williams v. Duston, 79 N.H. 490, 491, 111 A. 690, 691. A verdict 'will not ordinarily be directed in favor of the party having the burden of proof.' Mitrich v. Tuttle, 90 N.......
-
Harlow v. Lac Lair
...which is most favorable to him. Burke v. Railroad, 82 N. H. 350, 134 A. 574; Janvrin v. Powers, 79 N. H. 44, 104 A. 252; Williams v. Duston, 79 N. H. 490, 111 A. 690; Weeks v. Company, 78 N. H. 26, 95 A. The operation of this rule is not limited to the testimony of outside witnesses, but ap......