Opinion
No. 3627.
Decided February 4, 1947.
Ordinarily no question of law is presented to the Supreme Court, on the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the Trial Court's findings, where the sole exception of the defendant appearing in the record is that noted by the Court in his findings and rulings: "defendant's exceptions noted." Though the testimony of a witness is uncontradicted, the trier of facts is not compelled to give it full credence but may weigh and reject it if unworthy of credit. A contract with an agent having apparent general authority will bind his principal where the other party to the contract has no notice of any limitations upon the agent's authority.
ASSUMPSIT, to recover money paid under protest for repairs on a truck sold to the plaintiff by the defendant under an express thirty day warranty. Trial by the court (Lorimer, C. J.) who made the following findings and rulings:
"Verdict on specification with costs. Defendant is liable for balance due on warranty. Court finds that there was no mutual mistake in terms of warranty; that if any mistake was made it was made by defendant's employees while acting within the scope of their authority, and that plaintiff understood and intended that the warranty as written was part of agreement in the sale of the truck.
"Defendant's exceptions noted."
The defendant made no request for findings of fact or rulings of law and filed no motions or exceptions except as appears in the Court's findings above. Transferred by Leahy, J.
Murchie Murchie and Peter J. King (Mr. Alexander Murchie orally), for the plaintiff.
Osgood Osgood (Mr. Anson G. Osgood orally), for the defendant.
Plaintiff claims the record raises no question of law relying on Head Dowst Co. v. Breeders' Club, 75 N.H. 449, 450: "that a party cannot question the sufficiency of evidence to support a verdict or material issue in a case by motion after the case has been submitted to the court or jury, or by an exception to the verdict." This represents the usual practice in this state and has been followed generally. Hening's Digest, 1242; Bacon v. Thompson, 87 N.H. 270; Pflug v. Pflug, ante, 134.
This rule has certain limitations and exceptions which, however, do not benefit the defendant. "But this rule does not apply to an issue as to the adequacy or excessiveness of an assessment of damages": nor to "questions of law, apparent upon the face of the findings and rulings filed." Freeman v. Pacific Mills, 84 N.H. 383, 385. The rule "has frequently been relaxed in cases tried by the court," particularly where the hearing is designed to secure a ruling of law on a single question before the court. Plante v. Shortell, 92 N.H. 38, 40.
Applying the rule in non-jury cases, this court has frequently given a brief alternative reason for its holding. Erisman Co. v. Company, 87 N.H. 483, 484; Association Canado-Americaine v. Marquis, 90 N.H. 125, 127. Cf. Rickle v. Mills, 93 N.H. 191, 195; 501 Briefs Cases 439-442. While this discretionary practice cannot be always relied on by the parties it does have the advantage of disposing of cases on their merits. "Rules of practice and procedure shall be tools in aid of the promotion of justice rather than barriers and traps for its denial." Lewellyn v. Follansbee, ante, 111, 114.
Assuming in this case that the Trial Court intended to give the defendant the benefit of an exception to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings, the defendant's position would not be improved. The Court was not compelled to give full credence to the defendant's uncontradicted testimony that his agents had authority to give only a warranty for one half the cost of the repairs. Bill v. Company, 90 N.H. 453. The evidence was likewise uncontradicted that the plaintiff asked for and received from the defendant's sales manager a full thirty day warranty. The Court was justified in believing plaintiff's evidence and in rejecting defendant's evidence that a mistake was made in giving the warranty the plaintiff received. The plaintiff had no notice of any limitations, if such existed, on the apparent authority of the sales manager to deliver such a full warranty. Portland Motor Sales Co. v. Millett, 124 Me. 329. The record supports the Court's findings.
Judgment on the verdict.
All concurred.