Logue v. Clark

62 N.H. 184
CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire
DecidedJune 5, 1882
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

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

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
62 N.H. 184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/logue-v-clark-nh-1882.