Coffin v. Coffin
This text of 124 A. 461 (Coffin v. Coffin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The authority of the court to allow the amendment in question cannot be doubted. The parties were in court, and the finding of the court indicated that justice required such an amendment. Jellison v. Jellison, 70 N. H. 633; Sanborn v. Railroad, 76 N. H. 65. In fact the libelee does not deny the right of the court to permit the amendment. But his complaint is that he was not given a further hearing after the amendment was allowed. Whether this privilege should be granted to the libelee is a question *285 of fact to be determined by the trial court. LaCoss v. Lebanon, 78 N. H. 413, 417, and cases there cited. If justice requires that the libelee should have a further hearing, it should be granted to him upon application.
Exception overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
124 A. 461, 81 N.H. 284, 1924 N.H. LEXIS 30, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coffin-v-coffin-nh-1924.