Case ID: nh_78/html/0025-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Plummer, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Grafton, )
    Oct. 5, 1915.
    Maud A. Cook v. Oscar B. Sargent.
    An exception to findings of the trial court, on the ground that they are not in accordance with the weight of the evidence, raises no question of law.
    The objection that facts found by the trial court are not warranted by the evidence should be made at the trial, is not transferred by a general exception to the verdict, and is waived by a submission of the issue without raising the question by an appropriate motion.
    Bill in Equity, offering to restore to the defendant the title of ■ certain lands which he had deeded to the plaintiff and seeking to have the consideration which the plaintiff claims to have paid therefor restored to her. Trial by the court. Transferred from the October term, 1914, of the superior court by Sawyer, J.
    The plaintiff alleged that she was defrauded by the defendant or his agents. The superior court found that she was not so defrauded and ordered the bill dismissed. To this order the plaintiff excepted, on the ground that the court did not decide the case according to the weight of the evidence.
    After the findings of the court had been filed, the plaintiff requested that the entire evidence be printed and made a part of the case, in order that the parties might be “allowed to go into the weight of the evidence in their briefs before the supreme court.” This request was denied, and the plaintiff excepted. No motion was made at the close of the evidence for a directed verdict, or for general or specific findings.
    
      Horace J. Holden, for the plaintiff.
    
      Martin & Howe, for the defendant.
   Plummer, J.

The exceptions raise no questions of law. They are based upon the claim that the trial court did not find in accordance with the weight of the evidence. The weight of the evidence is fully and finally determined by the trial court, and the findings of the court relating thereto will not be disturbed by this court. Pitman v. Mauran, 69 N. H. 230; Wilbur v. Berry, 71 N. H. 619. Furthermore, if the plaintiff desired to raise the question that the facts found by the court were not warranted by the evidence, she should have made the objection at the trial. “This objection is not transferred by the general exception- to the verdict, and was waived by the submission of the issue without raising the question by the appropriate motion.” Tilton v. Tilton, 74 N. H. 602; Farnham v. Anderson, 74 N. H. 405; Elwell v. Roper, 72 N. H. 585; Head & Dowst Co. v. Breeders’ Club, 75 N. H. 449.

Exceptions overruled.

All concurred. -