Meredith Mechanic Ass'n v. American Twist Drill Co.

30 A. 1119, 66 N.H. 539
CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire
DecidedJune 5, 1891
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 30 A. 1119 (Meredith Mechanic Ass'n v. American Twist Drill Co.) 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
Meredith Mechanic Ass'n v. American Twist Drill Co., 30 A. 1119, 66 N.H. 539 (N.H. 1891).

Opinion

Doe, C. J.

In the first action, the amendment, if allowed, would be useless without a new trial. The motion to amend was not seasonably made, and it does not appear that justice requires-a new trial. The equitable principle of Britton v. Turner and Horn v. Batchelder (6 N. H. 481, 41 N. H. 86, Wadleigh v. Sutton, 6 N. H. 15, Elliot v. Heath, 14 N. H. 131, Clough v. Clough, 26 N. H. 24, 32, Davis v. Barrington, 30 N. H. 517, 528, Page v. Marsh, 36 N. H. 305, 308, Smith v. Newcastle, 48 N. H. 70, Blodgett v. Berlin Mills, 52 N. H. 215, 220, Ellsworth v. Brown, 55 N. H. 396) is applicable to a lessor’s claim for use and occupation. In the second action, the amendment, being seasonably applied for, should be allowed if justice requires it. Morgan v. Joyce, ante, p. 538.

Case discharged.

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

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

Related

Malcom v. Dorseman
148 A.2d 353 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1959)
Sanborn v. Boston & Maine Railroad
79 A. 642 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1911)
Ackerman v. Middleby
78 A. 615 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1910)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
30 A. 1119, 66 N.H. 539, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meredith-mechanic-assn-v-american-twist-drill-co-nh-1891.