From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Murphy v. Winter

Supreme Court of New Hampshire Hillsborough
Jun 28, 1934
173 A. 793 (N.H. 1934)

Opinion

Decided June 28, 1934.

CASE, for negligence. Trial by jury and verdicts for the plaintiffs. Transferred by Young, J. upon the defendant's exceptions to the denial of his motions for directed verdicts. The facts are stated in the opinion.

Hurley Connor (Mr. Connor orally), for the plaintiffs.

O'Connor Saidel (Mr. Saidel orally), for the defendant.


The plaintiffs were passengers in the defendant's car and were injured in a collision between that car and one driven by Harold Snedeker, at the intersection of Union and Salmon streets in Manchester. Winter was going east on Salmon street and Snedeker north on Union street. The latter is a through street and there is a stop sign on its westerly side at Salmon street.

There was the usual conflict of testimony. The defendant claimed that he stopped before entering the intersection and then proceeded across slowly. Snedeker testified that the defendant came across the intersection at a high speed, giving Snedeker no time to avoid a collision. This conflict presented an issue for the jury.

Judgments on the verdicts.


Summaries of

Murphy v. Winter

Supreme Court of New Hampshire Hillsborough
Jun 28, 1934
173 A. 793 (N.H. 1934)
Case details for

Murphy v. Winter

Case Details

Full title:VIOLET MURPHY v. GEORGE F. WINTER. JOSEPH MURPHY, per pro. ami v. SAME

Court:Supreme Court of New Hampshire Hillsborough

Date published: Jun 28, 1934

Citations

173 A. 793 (N.H. 1934)
173 A. 793

Citing Cases

Scahill v. Jabre

As every trial lawyer knows it is not uncommon to find "the usual conflict of testimony" as a common…

Naramore v. Putnam

KENISON, C. J. It is not uncommon in intersectional collisions to find "the usual conflict of testimony" as a…