From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Athanasiou v. Roftsias

Supreme Court of New Hampshire Hillsborough
Jun 29, 1933
167 A. 265 (N.H. 1933)

Opinion

Decided June 29, 1933.

ACTIONS OF ASSUMPSIT. Trial by jury and verdict for Olympia in each action. The action against her was on a promissory note which she denied signing. Her action was on a note of Roftsias given on her conveyance to him of her interest in property owned in common with him for a number of years. During this ownership in common Olympia's husband acted as her agent in respect to her interest. Roftsias claimed that she gave him the note on which he sued because he advanced more money than her husband in carrying the property, and to support the claim he offered evidence that when the property was bought the husband said he had creditors and for that reason had his interest taken in Olympia's name. To the exclusion of the evidence Roftsias excepted.

He also excepted to the allowance of an argument that he had an account to show the expense of carrying the property and failed to introduce it in evidence.

Transferred by Woodbury, J.

Osgood Osgood (Mr. Clinton S. Osgood orally), for Olympia.

James A. Broderick, (by brief), for Roftsias.


If the excluded evidence was relevant, it was within the trial court's discretion to exclude it for remoteness. As the exclusion may have been for this reason, the exception, being general, presents no legal question. Boulanger v. McQuesten, 79 N.H. 175, 176.

The case shows evidence warranting the argument excepted to.

Judgments on the verdicts.

WOODBURY, J., did not sit.


Summaries of

Athanasiou v. Roftsias

Supreme Court of New Hampshire Hillsborough
Jun 29, 1933
167 A. 265 (N.H. 1933)
Case details for

Athanasiou v. Roftsias

Case Details

Full title:OLYMPIA ATHANASIOU v. NICHOLAS ROFTSIAS. NICHOLAS ROFTSIAS v. OLYMPIA…

Court:Supreme Court of New Hampshire Hillsborough

Date published: Jun 29, 1933

Citations

167 A. 265 (N.H. 1933)
167 A. 265