From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Murphy v. Hill

Supreme Court of New Hampshire Merrimack
Jun 1, 1897
44 A. 1099 (N.H. 1897)

Opinion

Decided June, 1897.

Burleigh Adams, for the plaintiff and Franklin Eaton.

Charles C. Rogers, for the defendants.


Notice having been given Eaton, after the announcement of the previous opinion in this case at the June term, 1896 ( 68 N.H. 544), he appeared at the trial term, April, 1897, and assented to the facts previously reported, but offered no evidence. As no claim was made of fraud or mistake in the original entry of judgment in Eaton's favor in his suit against Clarence E. Hill, the question of law which it was suggested might be presented was not considered, and the views expressed in the opinion heretofore announced were affirmed. It now appearing as a fact that Nancy M. Hill did not join in the covenants sued upon, judgment was ordered for her and for the plaintiff, against Winthrop Y. Hill only, for one dollar damages.

Case discharged.


Summaries of

Murphy v. Hill

Supreme Court of New Hampshire Merrimack
Jun 1, 1897
44 A. 1099 (N.H. 1897)
Case details for

Murphy v. Hill

Case Details

Full title:MURPHY v. HILL a

Court:Supreme Court of New Hampshire Merrimack

Date published: Jun 1, 1897

Citations

44 A. 1099 (N.H. 1897)
44 A. 1099

Citing Cases

Lone Star Cement Corp. v. Palmer

That failure, unexplained, leads to unfavorable inferences. Levy v. D'Alesandro. 185 A. 543, 14 N.J.Misc.…

Levy v. D'Alesandro

The Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act provides that a voluntary conveyance by one who is insolvent carries…