Kelley v. Simonds

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Kelley v. Simonds

57 N.H. 308, 1876 N.H. LEXIS 95

Supreme Court of New Hampshire·Decided August 11, 1876·Published

Opinions

FROM MERRIMACK CIRCUIT COURT. I have not seen sufficient reason to change my mind since the question raised by this case was decided in Ray v. Austin, 56 N.H. 36. I thought then, and think now, that secs. 5 and 6 of ch. 212, Gen. Stats., cannot be incorporated by construction into the reference law of 1874; and I know of no rule of law which makes a judgment as upon default, or nonsuit, the only punishment which the court can visit upon a party who omits to appear before a referee, whether such omission be due to his misfortune, his contumacy, or his dislike of the law. I think the exception should be overruled.

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

FROM MERRIMACK CIRCUIT COURT. I have not seen sufficient reason to change my mind since the question raised by this case was decided in Ray v. Austin, 56 N.H. 36. I thought then, and think now, that secs. 5 and 6 of ch. 212, Gen. Stats., cannot be incorporated by construction into the reference law of 1874; and I know of no rule of law which makes a judgment as upon default, or nonsuit, the only punishment which the court can visit upon a party who omits to appear before a referee, whether such omission be due to his misfortune, his contumacy, or his dislike of the law. I think the exception should be overruled.

Kelley v. Simonds, 57 N.H. 308, 1876 N.H. LEXIS 95 (N.H. 1876).

Pincite

57 N.H. 308 (Kelley v. Simonds) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related