Wilson v. Goodnow
| Decision Date | 03 March 1953 |
| Citation | 95 A.2d 112,98 N.H. 110 |
| Parties | WILSON v. GOODNOW. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Philip H. Faulkner and George R. Hanna, Keene, for plaintiff.
Howard B. Lane, Keene, for defendant.
There were no requests for findings of fact or rulings of law and the sole exception being to the Court's verdict, the question before us which we may consider under our 'discretionary procedure' is whether there is evidence to sustain it. Eastman v. Waisman, 94 N.H. 253, 51 A.2d 151. It appears that the road in dispute is not in sight of the plaintiff's home and that from 1926, when the defendant purchased her lot, until 1937, when a sugar house was built on it, the defendant and her family made about two or three trips a year on foot to her property. There was no evidence that the plaintiff knew or had reason to know of any adverse claim by the defendant prior to 1937 in any event. In this situation the Court was clearly warranted in finding that the defendant, upon whom the burden rested, Gowen v. Swain, 90 N.H. 383, 10 A.2d 249, had failed to sustain her burden of proving that her occupation had been such an 'adverse, continuous, uninterrupted use * * * as to give notice to the record owner that an adverse claim was being made to it.' Alukonis v. Kashulines, 97 N.H. 298, 299, 86 A.2d 327, 328, and authorities cited. Furthermore, there was evidence from which it could be found that the use of the road to reach the defendant's land was not under a claim by right but by an alleged permission which the Court could believe was not established.
The defendant not having raised the question in the Superior Court of whether she had obtained any right under the statute, R.L. c. 90, § 1, it is not available to her here, although it may be said there was no evidence which compelled a finding in her favor on this issue. It appearing that the record fully justified the verdict, the defendant's exception must be overruled. Eastman v. Waisman, 94 N.H. 253, 51 A.2d 151. The order is
Judgment on the verdict.
All concurred.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kacavisti v. Sprague Elec. Co.
...281:2, subd. III was the basic issue before the Court. Under our discretionary procedure, we shall therefore consider it. Wilson v. Goodnow, 98 N.H. 110, 95 A.2d 112. There seems little point in reviewing the innumerable conflicting cases and doctrines, based on different policies and statu......
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Culver
...defendant before us, as permitted by our discretionary practice in non-jury cases such as this. Eastman v. Waisman, supra; Wilson v. Goodnow, 98 N.H. 110, 95 A.2d 112. No issue is presented concerning the validity of the plaintiff's action in cancelling the insurance as of August 17, 1953, ......
-
Merriam v. 352 West 42nd St. Corp.
...21 N.Y.S.2d 819, 822, aff'd 285 N.Y. 658, 33 N.E.2d 866; Offenhartz v. Heinsohn, 30 Misc.2d 693, 150 N.Y.S.2d 78, supra; Wilson v. Goodnow, 98 N.H. 110, 95 A.2d 112; DiGirolamo v. Philadelphia Gun Club, 371 Pa. 40, 89 A.2d Because of the basis upon which the case turns it is not necessary t......
-
State v. Duranleau
...that it had been in use for public travel for twenty years. Summerfield v. Wetherell, 82 N.H. 513, 516, 135 A. 147. See Wilson v. Goodnow, 98 N.H. 110, 111, 95 A.2d 112. Of course the burden may be satisfied by admission or stipulation but this was not done in this case. The precise questio......