Melvin v. Melvin

58 A. 835, 73 N.H. 602, 1904 N.H. LEXIS 28

• Court: Supreme Court of New Hampshire
• Decided: July 2, 1904
• Status: Published

Opinion

Parsons, C. J.

Whether sufficient cause appears in any ease to require that an action should be brought forward and the judgment vacated, is a question of fact.

The evidentiary facts stated are not necessarily inconsistent with a finding that justice did not require such action in this case; consequently the dismissal of the motion presents no error of law. Fulton Pulley Co. v. Company, 71 N. H. 384; Reed v. Prescott, 70 N. H. 88; Clough v. Moore, 63 N. H. 111, 113; Warner Bank v. Clement, 58 N. H. 533.

Exception overruled.

Young, J., did not sit: the others concurred.