Merchants National Bank v. Sullivan

95 A.2d 780, 98 N.H. 151, 1953 N.H. LEXIS 35
Supreme Court of New Hampshire·Decided April 7, 1953·No. 4190·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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

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

95 A.2d 780 (Merchants National Bank v. Sullivan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Timberlane Regional Education Ass'n v. Crompton
347 A.2d 612 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1975)