History
  • No items yet
midpage
Cardwell v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
87 N.H. 485
| N.H. | 1935
|
Check Treatment

The only exception of the plaintiff is to the order dismissing his bill. The facts having been found by the court, this exception raises the question whether the order and the ruling upon which it was based are inconsistent with the findings and nothing more. This question has not been argued and is hardly debatable. The contention of the plaintiff is rather that certain items of evidence compel the conclusion that the agent of the defendant companies had more authority, actual and apparent, than the court found him to possess. This question has not been transferred, and the plaintiff's exception must, therefore, be overruled. An examination of the record indicates, however, that the same result would be reached if the question argued were properly before us for decision.

Exception overruled. *Page 486

Case Details

Case Name: Cardwell v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
Court Name: Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Date Published: Apr 2, 1935
Citation: 87 N.H. 485
Court Abbreviation: N.H.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.