Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
  • E. Fletcher, for the claimant, argued that the affirmative and the burden of proof were upon the claimant, and he had the right to open and close, and could not be required to give up this right in exchange for the plaintiff's assumption of the burden. W. H. Heywood and Ray, for the plaintiff.
Judges
  • STANLEY, J.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
  • E. Fletcher, for the claimant, argued that the affirmative and the burden of proof were upon the claimant, and he had the right to open and close, and could not be required to give up this right in exchange for the plaintiff's assumption of the burden. W. H. Heywood and Ray, for the plaintiff.
Judges
  • STANLEY, J.
See more information ...
Smart Summary

SCHOFF v. LAITHE.

A verdict is not set aside on the ground that the prevailing party was allowed to open and close, unless it appears that injustice was done.

STANLEY, J.

A verdict is not set aside on the ground that the prevailing party was allowed to open and close, unless it is shown that the other party has suffered actual injustice. Hardy v. Merrill, 56 N.H. 227, 234; Day v. Woodworth, 13 How. 363, 370; Doe v. Brayne, 5 M. G. S. 655; Bird v. Higginson, 2 A E. 160.

Judgment on the verdict.

DOE, C. J., did not sit.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.
Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

Comments

SCHOFF v. LAITHE
(Aug 1, 1878)