Monroe v. Connecticut River Lumber Co.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Monroe v. Connecticut River Lumber Co.

32 A. 152, 66 N.H. 628

DecidedJune 5, 1891

StatusPublished

This text of 32 A. 152 (Monroe v. Connecticut River Lumber 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

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A. 152, 66 N.H. 628, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/monroe-v-connecticut-river-lumber-co-nh-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack