Moore v. Maryland Casualty Co.

64 A. 1099, 74 N.H. 47, 1906 N.H. LEXIS 59
Supreme Court of New Hampshire·Decided October 2, 1906·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Bingham, J.

The determination of this controversy depends upon the interpretation of a contract which is governed by the law of Massachusetts. A prior suit involving the same subject-matter and between the same parties is now pending in the courts of Massachusetts. Under these circumstances it is not deemed advisable for this court to now pass upon the question here presented. Although the pendency of the Massachusetts suit is not pleadable in abatement of the present action (Yelverton v. Conant, 18 N. H. 123; Goodall v. Marshall, 11 N. H. 88; 1 Cyc. 36), nevertheless, its pendency being suggested, it is discretionary with this court to direct that the present action be continued to await the final disposition of the Massachusetts suit. Douglass v. Insurance Co., 138 N. Y. 209, 218; 1 Cyc. 36, 37.

Case continued.

All concurred.

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

Moore v. Maryland Casualty Co., 64 A. 1099, 74 N.H. 47, 1906 N.H. LEXIS 59 (N.H. 1906).

64 A. 1099 (Moore v. Maryland Casualty Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Simmons v. Superior Court
214 P.2d 844 (California Court of Appeal, 1950)
Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co.
132 P.2d 70 (California Court of Appeal, 1942)
Lacoss v. Lebanon
101 A. 364 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1917)