Hickey v. Dole

31 A. 900, 66 N.H. 612
Supreme Court of New Hampshire·Decided June 5, 1891·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Doe, C. J.

A defendant may have affirmative relief against the plaintiff. Clark v. Clark, 62 N. H. 267, 268, 272; Cox v. Leviston, 63 N. H. 283, 287. Both parties are entitled to just and convenient procedure. Pearson v. Railroad, 63 N. H. 534; Boody v. Watson, 64 N. H. 162, 171-174, 178, 179. The defendants’ situation is such that justice and convenience require in this suit an adjustment of their conflicting claims in regard to contribution. It is not suggested that the plaintiff has any interest in their controversy. if they ask delay in the enforcement of his decree, the reasonableness of delay will be considered at the trial term, where an additional decree will be made when the question of contribution is tried.

All concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Hickey v. Dole, 31 A. 900, 66 N.H. 612 (N.H. 1891).

31 A. 900 (Hickey v. Dole) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Carter v. Berry
136 So. 2d 871 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1962)
Lacoss v. Lebanon
101 A. 364 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1917)