« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »
on the ground of remoteness did not deprive / spect to the sharpening of the spurs on the plaintiff of his constitutional right to a jury ladder, the inference that can be drawn from trial, guaranteed by Bill of Rights, art. 20.
it is so uncertain and remote that it is more [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Jury, Cent. likely to prevent than to promote the disDig. 88 204-219; Dec. Dig. 8 31.*] 3. NEW TRIAL ( 7*)-RIGHT TO NEW TRIAL covery of the truth. It cannot be said that -BILL OF RIGHTS.
there is no evidence to support this finding. Bill of Rights, art. 14, guaranteeing to a [1-4] There is no merit in the plaintiff's suitor a certain remedy for all injuries he may contention that the denial of his motion for receive, does not entitle him to a new trial for newly discovered evidence as a matter of right, a new trial is a violation of his right to but in order to obtain such relief he must show, "a certain remedy
for all injuries not only that he was free from fault, but that he may receive" (Bill of Rights, art. 14), or a different result would probably be reached that the court's finding that if the new eviif he was given a trialas provided by Pub St. 1901, c. 230, § 1.
dence is relevant it should be excluded on [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see New Trial, the ground of remoteness deprives him of his Cent. Dig. $ 18; Dec. Dig. $ 7.*]
constitutional right to a jury trial. Bill of 4. JURY (8 31*)-RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL Rights, art. 20. Article 14 of the Bill of COMPETENCY OF EVIDENCE.
Though plaintiff has a constitutional right Rights does not entitle him to a new trial to have a jury pass on any competent evidence as a matter of right. In order to obtain he may produce, he has no right, constitutional such relief he must show, not only that he or otherwise, to have the jury pass on the com- is free from fault, but also that a different petency of the evidence by which he proposes to result will probably be reached if he is givprove his case. [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Jury, Cent.
en a new trial. P. S. c. 230, § 1; Crafts v. Dig. 88 204-219; Dec. Dig. ši 31.*]
Insurance Co., 36 N. H. 44, 50; Dennett v.
Dennett, 44 N. H. 531, 535, 84 Am. Dec. 97. Exceptions from Superior Court, Merri- Although the plaintiff has a constitutional mack County ; Pike, Judge.
right to have a jury pass on any competent Action by Crosby A. Sanborn against the evidence he may produce (St. Pierre v. Fos. Boston & Maine Railroad. A motion for a ter, 75 N. H. 11, 70 Atl. 289), he has no right, new trial for newly discovered evidence was constitutional or otherwise, to have the jury overruled, and the case transferred to the pass on the competency of the evidence by Supreme Court on exceptions. Overruled. which he proposes to prove his case.
Motion for a new trial, on the ground of Exception overruled. newly discovered evidence. The case is the same as that reported in 76 N. H. 523, 86 Atl. PLUMMER, J., was absent. The others 157, where it was held that the evidence did concurred. not warrant the conclusion that the defendants had given the plaintiff to understand
(77 N. H. 337) they would keep the spurs sharp upon the
SLEEPER v. SMITH et al. ladder which he was using at the time of (Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Merrimack his injury. The new evidence, in substance,
County. June 27, 1914.) (1) That it was the custom of the 1. FRAUD ($ 58*)-REPRESENTATIONS-KNOWLman in charge of the planer to sharpen the
EDGE OF FALSITY-EVIDENCE.
Evidence that defendant was a good busispurs; and (2) that other workmen who had ness man, that he had carefully examined a occasion to use the ladder did so without mortgaged farm to ascertain its value, with a making an examination of it. The superior view of buying it, and that it was worth $14,court found that the plaintiff was not at 000, justified a finding that he knew it was
worth much more than about the amount of fault in failing to offer the new evidence at the first two mortgages on it, $7,000, the the trial, and that such evidence, if relevant, amount which he represented it to the owner was so remote and inconclusive that justice of the third mortgage to be worth. did not require the granting of a new trial, Digos 90, 91; Dec. Dig. $ ' 58.*]
[Ed. Note. For other cases, see Fraud, Cent. and denied the present motion, subject to the plaintiff's exception.
2. FRAUD ($ 11*)—REPRESENTATIONS-OPIN
IONS. Robert W. Upton, of Concord, for plain As regards fraud, there is a false repretiff. Streeter, Demond, Woodworth & Sullo sentation of fact where one expresses an opin
ion as to value for the purpose of misleading, way, of Concord, for defendant.
when in fact he does not entertain that opin
ion. YOUNG, J. As the case is understood, [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Fraud, Cent. the court found in effect that if a new trial Dig. $ 11; Dec. Dig. § 11.*] were granted it would not change the result, 3. FRAUD ($ 58*)-RELIANCE ON REPRESENTAbecause it would be the court's duty to ex
While the fact that plaintiff called in two clude for remoteness the evidence by which men to advise her in the matter of making a the plaintiff seeks to sustain his contention. sale to defendant may be evidence that she did In other words, the court found that if the not rely entirely on what he said, it is .not conevidence on which the plaintiff relies is clusive that she was not misled by his state
ments. relevant to the issue of what the defendants
[Ed. Note. For other cases, see Fraud, Cent. gave their employés to understand in re- Dig. $$ 90, 91; Dec. Dig. $ 58.*]
*For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep'r Indexes
4. APPEAL AND ERROR & 1050*)-HARMLESS for her mortgage, for he did not know how ERROR-ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE.
they would come out. A reasonable inference , in tiff's testimony that a man from Boston tried from his conversation with her, according to to buy her mortgage after she had sold it to her testimony, would be that he had serious defendant is harmless; she having previously, doubts about the property being worth more without objection, stated all this, except the than the amount of the first two mortgages, man's residence. [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Appeal, and tiff relied upon this representation and was
which was about $7,000, and that the plainError, Cent. Dig. $$_1068, 1069, 4153-4157, 4166; Dec. Dig. $ 1050.*]
induced to give up her security for $100, upon
the theory, as she testified, that it was better Exceptions from Superior Court, Merri- to take that than to lose the whole of her mack County; Chamberlin, Judge.
claim. Considerable evidence was introduced Action on the case by Elmira W. Sleeper upon the subject of the value of the farm, against Charles D. Smith and others, for from which the jury might have found that fraud in the purchase of a farm mortgage. at the time of this transaction it was worth There was a verdict for plaintiff, and the about $14,000, and that the defendants undercase is transferred from the Superior Court stood that it was at least worth much more on defendants' exceptions to the denial of than the mortgage indebtedness. The facts their motions for a nonsuit and the direction that the defendants were good business men, of a verdict in their favor. Exceptions over and that they had carefully examined the ruled.
property to ascertain its value with a view of Niles & Upton, of Concord, for plaintiff. purchasing it, justified the finding that they John H. Albin, of Concord, and Edgar w. knew it was worth much more than Smith Smith, of Wells River, Vt., for defendants. represented it to be to the plaintiff. There
was evidence, therefore, of all the elements of WALKER, J.  The defendants' motions fraud perpetrated by the defendants upon for a nonsuit and for a directed verdict pre
the plaintiff--a false representation, known sent the question of law whether the evidence by the defendants to be such, as to the value authorized the jury to find that the defend of the plaintiff's property, made for the purants made false and fraudulent representa pose of inducing her to sell it to them for tions to the plaintiff, intending thereby to in- little more than a nominal sum, her sale of it duce her to sell her mortgage security to to them in justifiable reliance upon their repthem for a sum far below its actual value, resentation, and the resulting damage to her. and that the plaintiff relied on and was in Stewart v. Stearns, 63 N. H. 99, 56 Am. Rep. duced by such representations to sell her 496; Spead v. Tomlinson, 73 N. H. 46, 61, 59 mortgage for the sum mentioned. As there Atl. 376, 68 L. R. A. 432; Shackett v. Bickwere no exceptions to the charge, it must be ford, 74 N. H. 57, 65 Atl. 252, 7 L. R. A. (N. assumed that the jury were properly instruct- S.) 646, 124 Am. St. Rep. 933; Sipola v. Wined in regard to the law of the case. The prin ship, 74 N. H. 240, 66 Atl. 962; Cunningham cipal contention, therefore, relates to the suf- v. Company, 74 N. H. 435, 69 Atl. 120, 20 L. R. ficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. A. (N. S.) 236, 124 Am. St. Rep. 979; RedThat the plaintiff sold her mortgage on the grave v. Hurd, 20 Ch. Div. 1. farm in question to the defendants for $100,
 The argument advanced by the defenda ninth part of the sum for which it was orig. ants that what Smith said about the value of inally given, upon the personal solicitation of the property and the almost worthless one of the defendants, Smith, who was acting acter of the plaintiff's mortgage was a mere for the others as well as for himself, is conced- expression of opinion, and not the assertion of ed. It is also admitted that the plaintiff was a fact upon which she was entitled to rely, is an old lady who had little knowledge of real fallacious; for if in one sense it was the estate values, while Snith was a business man expression of an opinion, the jury could find who was conversant with land values in that that, in view of his business ability and the vicinity and who, in conjunction with his careful examination he had made of the proppartners, purchased the first mortgage on the erty, he did not in fact entertain that opinion, farm and sought to buy the plaintiff's interest but expressed it for the purpose of misleadfor the purpose of making money by the ing the plaintiff. transaction. It is clear that Smith's purpose
“When a person gives his opinion, the statein visiting the plaintiff was to induce her in ment that it is his opinion includes one that
the truth; some way to sell her mortgage, which was the in other words, that what he has stated as his third mortgage on the property. There was opinion is his opinion. Every expression of evidence tending to show that the defendants opinion contains at least that one statement were enthusiastic in carrying out their pur-what he knows to be false, for the purpose of
of fact; consequently, a person can state pose of buying up the outstanding mortgages inducing another to change his position, when and in acquiring an absolute title to the prop- he pretends to express his opinion as to any erty upon foreclosure proceedings, which had matter, as well as when he pretends to state been begun. The plaintiff testified that Smith ty of the statement consists in stating some
facts in relation to it. In such a case the falsitold her he could not pay her more than $100 thing as his opinion which is not his opinion.”
*For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep'r Indexes
Spead v. Tomlinson, 73 N. H. 62, 59 Atl. 381, law, limiting its jurisdiction as to admitting 68 L. R. A. 432.
members, was a "dead letter."  The fact that the plaintiff called in two Cent. Dig. 38; Dec. Dig. § 8.*
[Ed. Note.--For other cases, see Associations, other men to advise her in the matter may have been evidence that she did not rely en- vol. 5, pp. 4539-4542; vol. 8, p. 7722.]
For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, tirely on what Smith said, but it is not con
Exceptions from Superior Court, Strafford clusive that she was not misled by his state
County; Young, Judge. ments. It was clearly competent for the jury to find that she was.
Bill in equity by George H. Yeaton and  The exception to the plaintiff's testi- others to enjoin the Somersworth Grange of
the Patrons of Husbandry from refusing mony that a man from Boston tried to purchase her mortgage after she had sold it to plaintiffs admission to its hall and from de the defendants is unavailing. It seems she priving them of the privileges and benefits had already stated without objection that enjoyed by members of the organization in she received such an offer. Whether the man good standing, the New Hampshire State lived in Boston or not does not seem to be Grange and the National Grange also being
made defendants. Findings and rulings important or prejudicial. Its admission was
were adverse to defendants, and they exnot error. · Exceptions overruled; judgment for the cepted. Exceptions sustained. plaintiff.
The plaintiffs while residents of Rollins
ford applied for membership in the SomersPLUMMER, J., was absent. The others worth Grange, and, being declared eligible concurred.
by the master of that grange, they were thereupon elected and took the first two de
grees of the order. This proceeding was in (77 N. H. 332) YEATON et al.
violation of a by-law of the order legally al. V.
V. SOMERSWORTH GRANGE OF PATRONS OF HUS
adopted by the State Grange and imposed BANDRY et al.
upon the subordinate granges in their admis
sion of members, which provided that in (Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Strafford such a case the Rollinsford Grange should County. June 27, 1914.)
be notified and its consent obtained; but the 1. ASSOCIATIONS (8 5*)—GRANGES-BY-LAWS court found that the by-law had not been -DETERMINATION-REVIEW BY COURTS. observed in many instances by granges in
The question, whether a by-law of the the vicinity of Somersworth, and that for State Grange, prescribing jurisdiction of a subordinate grange as to admission of members, that reason it had become a dead letter.
As has become a "dead letter," having been final soon as the Rollinsford Grange learned that ly determined by the regular tribunals of the the plaintiffs had been admitted to the Somorder, will not, ordinarily, be re-examined by ersworth Grange it entered a complaint the courts.
[Ed. Note.- For other cases, see Associations, with the master of the State Grange, who Cent. Dig. 88 4-6; Dec. Dig. & 5.*]
upon a hearing ruled that the plaintiffs had
not been admitted in accordance with the 2. ASSOCIATIONS (8 5*)-GRANGES-BY-LAWS -REPEAL-SUBORDINATE GRANGES.
rules of the order, and dismissed the comA by-law imposed by the State Grange on plaint. The Somersworth Grange appealed all subordinate granges as to jurisdiction in from the decision to the State Grange, and the admission of members cannot be, in effect, from its decision to the National Grange.
a a long time disregarding it.
Both of these organizations sustained the [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Associations, finding of the master of the State Grange. Cent. Dig. 88 4-6; Dec. Dig. & 5.*]
The question whether the plaintiffs became 3. ASSOCIATIONS (8 5*)-GRANGES-BY-LAWS members through “inadvertence or mistake," -REPEAL-EVIDENCE.
within the meaning of another provision of It cannot be inferred that the State Grange the by-laws, was not decided upon the aphad waived or repealed a by-law imposed by it on subordinate granges as to jurisdiction in peals; but the court ruled that if the bythe admission of members, because some of law as to jurisdiction was in full force and its officers knew, or were chargeable with knowl- effect, nevertheless the plaintiffs became edge, that the by-law had not always been ob- members through inadvertence and mistake served by some of the subordinate granges in a certain vicinity.
as to the meaning and effect of that by-law. [Ed. Note:- For other cases, see Associations, To these findings and rulings the defendants Cent. Dig. $$ 4-6; Dec. Dig. § 5.*]
excepted. 4. ASSOCIATIONS ($ 8*)-GRANGES-BY-LAWS Elmer J. Smart, of Rochester, for plain-"MISTAKE."
tiffs. Harry W. Spaulding and Robert L. A by-law of the State Grange, in effect, that discovery that a subordinate grange has Manning, both of Manchester, for defend"inadvertently or by mistake” initiated a mem- ants. ber from the jurisdiction of another grange, without its consent, shall not render his ad
WALKER, J.  In the "by-laws of the mission illegal, refers to a mistake of fact as to the applicant's place of residence, and does New Hampshire State Grange” (page 29) it not include a mistaken belief that another by- | is provided that "when a grange [i. e., a sub
*For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep'r Indexes
ordinate grange] receives an application for bound by the adjudication upon their memmembership from a candidate residing with-bership rights in the contest between the in the jurisdiction of another grange, it two granges. But however this may be, an should be laid upon the table, and no further examination of the facts leads to the same action be taken upon it until the consent of conclusion as that reached by the tribunals the grangé having jurisdiction is obtained”; of the order. also, that "complaints for infringement of The plaintiffs' argument, based upon a jurisdiction must be made to the master of custom to disregard a positive by-law in the State Grange within sixty days after the regard to the admission of members in subinitiation of the candidate." The former ordinate granges, if otherwise sound, overby-law was not observed when the plaintiffs' looks the essential fact that the by-law in applications were received by the Somers- question is not a regulation adopted by the worth Grange. The proceedings upon the Somersworth Grange, but one imposed upon applications were the same as are observed it and all other subordinate granges in the when an applicant is within the territorial state by the superior authority of the State limits of the grange he desires to join. The Grange. It could not modify or repeal it, master of the grange declared them to be nor could it accomplish that purpose indieligible, and they were elected at the first rectly by a series of violations of its provimeeting and took the first two degrees. In sions.
Insions. Whatever effect its continued nonthis situation the question arises whether observance of a rule adopted by it might they were admitted to membership in the have, it is clear that it could not of its own Somersworth Grange, in apparent violation motion, through the acts of its master, deand repudiation of the rule or by-law in clare an applicant for membership eligible regard to jurisdiction. Their contention is in violation of a rule formulated by the that this by-law had become a “dead letter” | state organization and made obligatory and in consequence of a custom that had grown binding upon the local branches in their adup in that vicinity of disregarding its provi- mission of new members. It is true that sions in such cases; that is, that its nonob- such a case, if the member living in another servance in many former cases occurring in jurisdiction was formally admitted without granges in the vicinity of Somersworth had a compliance with the rule, his status as a deprived it of its validity, and that the juris- member might become established, if no comdictional test of eligibility to membership plaint was interposed by the grange in whose had been waived. The question thus pre- territorial limits he lived, within 60 days sented having been finally determined by the after his initiation. But his right to memregular tribunals of the order adversely to bership would at most be conditional during this contention, upon the appeal of the Rol- that period; it might upon complaint be linsford Grange against the Somersworth determined, in accordance with the proceGrange, would not ordinarily be re-exam- dure and rules of the order, that he did not ined in this court.
become a member, and such was the result “The preponderance of authority is in favor with reference to the plaintiffs upon the of the doctrine that as to all questions of pol- complaint of the Rollinsford Grange against icy, discipline, internal government, and custom, the legal tribunals must accept as bind- the Somersworth Grange. If they had been ing the decision of the regularly constituted parties to that proceeding in a technical judicatories of the church. fraternity, associa- sense, they would undoubtedly have been tion, or society.” 1 Bac. Ben. Soc., Š 68.
bound by the final decree or order. Whether See, also, Spilman v. Home Circle, 157 they are so bound need not be considered: Mass. 128, 31 N. E. 776; Connelly v. Asso- for by that decision, upon appeal to the ciation, 58 Conn. 552, 20 Atl. 671, 9 L. R. A. highest tribunal of the order, it has been 428, 18 Am. St. Rep. 296; State v. Knights held that the by-law in question was in full of Pythias, 53 N. J. Law, 536, 22 Atl. 343; force when they applied for admission, and People v. Board of Trade, 80 Ill. 134; State that the action of the Somersworth Grange v. Grand Lodge, 8 Mo. App. 148; Watson v. in 'admitting them was void. This interJones, 13 Wall. 769, 20 L. Ed. 666; 24 Am. pretation of the by-law is at least an auLaw Rev. 556.
thority to be considered by the court in this  But it is urged in argument by the case, as indicating with some force what plaintiffs that as they were not technically the by-law means and what the effect is of parties to the proceedings upon appeal, they its violation. It is not necessary to hold are not bound by the decision, which in ef- that it is a conclusive authority, for it seems fect was based upon a ruling that they were to coincide with the views of the court above not members of the Somersworth Grange, expressed. never having been legally admitted as such;  The fact that some of the officers of and that no procedure is provided by which the State Grange knew, or were chargeable they can bring the question of their member- with knowledge, that the by-law in question ship before the grange for adjudication. It had not always been observed by some of might be a sufficient answer to this conten- the subordinate granges in the vicinity of tion to say that when they applied for mem- Somersworth does not authorize the inferbership they impliedly agreed to be bound by ence that the State Grange, that established the rules of the order, and that they are the by-law, had waived or repealed it. It
would be a novel doctrine that knowledge, evident intention expressed by the language on the part of those charged with the en- of the by-law. It is not to be presumed the forcement of a law that it has been violated rule as to the eligibility of candidates was in some instances, unaccompanied with any not to apply when there should be a misattempt to enforce it, is evidence that the taken belief by the parties that it was not law is of no legal force. There is no evi- in force. Such an assumption is absurd. dence that by any act of the State Grange The mistake suggested and relied upon by this by-law has been repealed or invali- the plaintiffs was a mere mistake of law. dated.
They erroneously supposed that the by-law  But it is urged that if the by-law was was meaningless, but they are not thereby in force they were admitted by inadvertence authorized to profit by their error of judg. and mistake, within the meaning of another ment. Evans v. Gale, 17 N. H. 573, 575, 43 by-law which provides that "should a grange, Am. Dec. 614; Bradley 7. Laconia, 66 N. inadvertently or by mistake, initiate a mem- H. 269, 20 Atl. 331; Strafford Savings Bank ber from the jurisdiction of another grange v. Church, 69 N. H. 582, 44 Atl. 105; State v. without the consent of such grange, it shall Goodenow, 65 Me. 30; People v. Powell, 63 pay the injured grange all the initiatory N. Y. 88, 92. fees, except what goes to the State Grange." Moreover, by applying for admission to It is found as a fact that this point was the grange the plaintiffs in effect agreed that not raised or considered by the State Grange their eligibility should be determined by its upon the appeal, and it does not appear to existing rules and in accordance with the have been determined by the order in any prescribed procedure. If the rule in regard case. The only mistake suggested is in the to mistake and inadvertence is deemed to assumption of the plaintiffs and of the Som- be a part of the contract relation to which ersworth Grange that the by-law relating to the plaintiffs assented, its interpretation jurisdiction was a "dead letter.” Although does not differ from what it is when viewed it is found as a fact that they all entertained as a quasi legislative provision. The questhis idea in good faith, it does not follow tion is still one of intention, to be ascertainthat the legal efficacy of this by-law, as ap-ed from the language employed in its appliplied to them, was thereby abrogated. The cation to the subject matter. No different evident purpose of the by-law was to make test is required, and no different result is an honest mistake by a subordinate grange
reached. The plaintiffs did not become as to the residence of the candidate inef- members of the Somersworth Grange. . fectual to render his admission illegal. It
Exceptions sustained. was not intended that a mistake as to the
YOUNG, J., did not sit. PLUMMER, J., force and validity of a by-law, or an er was absent. The others concurred. roneous assumption that a rule of the order defining the eligibility of a candidate was
(77 N. H. 340) of no consequence, should have the same WHITE MOUNTAIN FUR CO. v. TOWN OF
. . effect as a careful compliance with the rule.
WHITEFIELD. The honest, but mistaken, opinion of a sub
(Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Coos. ordinate grange that a rule prescribed by
June 27, 1914.) the State Grange relating to the admission 1. TAXATION (8 72*) PROPERTY SUBJECT TO of members, not formally repealed or modi Tax—"TRADESMAN. fied by the superior body, was not intended The word "tradesman," in its most common to have the force and effect of law in the it is frequently used in the sense of a skilled
meaning, is synonymous with "shopkeeper"; but particular cases in which it might be applied workman, as a blacksmith, carpenter, or tanner, does not render its nonobservance an imma- and such was the intended meaning of the word terial circumstance. If there was a mistake in Pub. St. 1901, c. 55, § 7, cl. 6, taxing the of fact as to the jurisdictional line between did not include the owner of a fox pack kept
stock in trade of tradesmen, and as so used it two granges, or as to the actual domicile for breeding purposes and for sale. of the applicant, whether within or without [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Taxation, that line, the by-law prescribes, in effect, that Cent. Dig. 8 157; Dec. Dig. $ 72.* his initiation does not become void upon
For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, the discovery of the fact that he lived with First and Second Series, Trader.]
2. WORDS AND PHRASES out the jurisdiction. The previous rule pre
“SHOPKEEPER.” scribing a jurisdictional test of the eligibility A merchant is one whose business or OCof the applicants does not apply in such a cupation is buying and selling commodities; but case. But the finding of the court that the every person who buys and sells commodities is mistake or inadvertence related, not to the merchant is true of a shopkeeper, for whether
not necessarily a merchant. What is true of a fact of the actual residence of the plaintiffs, a person who buys and sells commodities as a but to the validity of a material by-law, is business is one or the other depends on the exnot sufficient to relieve the plaintiffs from tent, and not on the character, of his business;
if his business is large he is a' "merchant," and the consequences of a violation of the by- if it is small he is a "shopkeeper." law when they sought admission to the or [For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, der. Such a result would be contrary to the First and Second Series, Merchant; Shopkeeper.) *For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep'r Indexes