Hickey v. Dole
This text of 31 A. 900 (Hickey v. Dole) 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
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
31 A. 900, 66 N.H. 612, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hickey-v-dole-nh-1891.