Dorr v. Leach

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Dorr v. Leach

58 N.H. 18

CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire

DecidedDecember 5, 1876

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 58 N.H. 18 (Dorr v. Leach) 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.

Bluebook

Dorr v. Leach, 58 N.H. 18 (N.H. 1876).

Pincite

Opinion

Stanley, J.

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

Stanley, J.

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 N.H. 18, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dorr-v-leach-nh-1876.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack