Merchants National Bank v. Sullivan

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Merchants National Bank v. Sullivan

95 A.2d 780, 98 N.H. 151, 1953 N.H. LEXIS 35

CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire

DecidedApril 7, 1953

Docket4190

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 95 A.2d 780 (Merchants National Bank v. Sullivan) 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

Merchants National Bank v. Sullivan, 95 A.2d 780, 98 N.H. 151, 1953 N.H. LEXIS 35 (N.H. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Blandin, J.

It is axiomatic that the enforcement of its rules rests within the discretion of the Trial Court. Lehigh &c. Company v. Company, 89 N. H. 274, 275, and cases cited. We perceive no abuse of discretion here, as among other factors it appears the defendants, although notified in ample season that they should comply with Superior Court Rule 73, chose rather to rely on their own judgment that the rule was not applicable. Having done so, they cannot now complain. Broderick v. Smith, 92 N. H. 33, 36. Neither can they prevail upon their exception to the Court’s failure to adopt their proposed reserved case. It appears they omitted certain facts from it, while inserting other matters of argument and contention, all of which furnished sufficient reason for the Court’s refusal. Woodsville Fire District v. Cray, 88 N. H. 264, 267. It follows the order is

Judgment on the decree.

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

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

Blandin, J.

It is axiomatic that the enforcement of its rules rests within the discretion of the Trial Court. Lehigh &c. Company v. Company, 89 N. H. 274, 275, and cases cited. We perceive no abuse of discretion here, as among other factors it appears the defendants, although notified in ample season that they should comply with Superior Court Rule 73, chose rather to rely on their own judgment that the rule was not applicable. Having done so, they cannot now complain. Broderick v. Smith, 92 N. H. 33, 36. Neither can they prevail upon their exception to the Court’s failure to adopt their proposed reserved case. It appears they omitted certain facts from it, while inserting other matters of argument and contention, all of which furnished sufficient reason for the Court’s refusal. Woodsville Fire District v. Cray, 88 N. H. 264, 267. It follows the order is

Judgment on the decree.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 A.2d 780, 98 N.H. 151, 1953 N.H. LEXIS 35, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/merchants-national-bank-v-sullivan-nh-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack