Logue v. Clark

62 N.H. 184
Supreme Court of New Hampshire·Decided June 5, 1882·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

STANLEY, J.

A writ of certiorari is not ordinarily granted when the plaintiff has other ample and convenient remedies for the establishment and protection of his rights. Huse v. Grimes, 2 N. H. 208, 212; Tucker’s Petition, 27 N. H. 405, 409; Landaff’s Petition. 84 N. H. 163, 173; Peters v. Peters, 8 Cush. 529. The plaintiff’s remedy by appeal would have afforded him all the redress that he seeks by this proceeding. G. L., c. 207, s. 1; Moses v. Julian, 45 N. 52, 54.

As it does not appear that injustice was done by the decree of the judge of probate, the motion to amend the petition so that it may be regarded as an application for leave to appeal, under Gen. Laws, c. 207, ss. 7, 9, is denied. Holton v. Olcott, 58 N. H. 598; Bolles v. Dalton, 59 N. H. 479; Redding v. Dodge, 59 N. H. 98; Edes v. Herrick, 61 N. H. 60, 61.

Petition dismissed.

All concurred.

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

Logue v. Clark, 62 N.H. 184 (N.H. 1882).

62 N.H. 184 (Logue v. Clark) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Waisman v. Manchester
69 A.2d 871 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1949)
Bickford v. Franconia
60 A. 98 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1905)
Leighton v. Concord & Montreal Railroad
55 A. 938 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1903)
Grand Trunk Railway Co. v. Berlin
36 A. 554 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1894)
Morgan v. Joyce
30 A. 1119 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1891)