Dorr v. Leach
58 N.H. 18
Opinion
Plumer ought not to have been admitted to defend. He has no interest in this suit. There is no way in which he will be prejudiced, or his rights affected, by the judgment. The evidence of his title was therefore irrelevant and inadmissible. Buckman v. Buckman, 4 N. H. 319; Blaisdell v. Ladd, 14 N. H. 129; Boscawen v. Canterbury, 23 N. H. 188; Pike v. Pike, 24 N. H. 384; Dunbar v. Starkey, 19 N. H. 160.
Motion denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Dorr v. Leach, 58 N.H. 18 (N.H. 1876).
58 N.H. 18 (Dorr v. Leach) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Genest v. Odell Manufacturing Co.
74 A. 593 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1909)
Parker v. Moore
63 N.H. 196 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1884)
Shaw v. Shaw
60 N.H. 565 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1881)
Emerson v. Emerson
58 N.H. 413 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1878)