Monroe v. Connecticut River Lumber Co.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Monroe v. Connecticut River Lumber Co.

32 A. 152, 66 N.H. 628

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Monroe v. Connecticut River Lumber Co.. Read the opinion of the Court — 68 N.H. 89 →

Supreme Court of New Hampshire·Decided June 5, 1891·Published

Opinion

Carpenter, J.

The question of fact, whether Van Dyke was made a party for the sole purpose of preventing a removal of the action, etc., can finally be determined only by the federal court. Burlington, &c., Railway Co. v. Dunn, 122 U. S. 513. Whether it is or is not expedient to try the question here is a question of fact for the trial term.

Case discharged.

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

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

Carpenter, J.

The question of fact, whether Van Dyke was made a party for the sole purpose of preventing a removal of the action, etc., can finally be determined only by the federal court. Burlington, &c., Railway Co. v. Dunn, 122 U. S. 513. Whether it is or is not expedient to try the question here is a question of fact for the trial term.

Case discharged.

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

Monroe v. Connecticut River Lumber Co., 32 A. 152, 66 N.H. 628 (N.H. 1891).

Pincite

32 A. 152 (Monroe v. Connecticut River Lumber Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related