Mudgett v. Melvin
This text of 34 A. 158 (Mudgett v. Melvin) 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.
Opinion
The exception cannot be sustained. Griswold v. Chandler, 6 N. H. 61; Wendell v. French, 19 N. H. 205, 214; *403 Mathes v. Bennett, 21 N. H. 188, 203; Kingman v. Kingman, 31 N. H. 182, 192; Clarke v. Clay, 31 N. H. 393, 404; Whitcher v. Benton, 50 N. H. 25; Olcott v. Thompson, 59 N. H. 154, 157; Nutter v. Varney, 64 N. H. 334. The question of justice presented by the appellant’s motion for costs, was a question of fact determinable at the trial term. The decision of that question required a consideration of evidence that is not stated in the case. It does not appear that wrong would have been done if the appellee had recovered a portion or the whole of his costs.
.Exception overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
34 A. 158, 66 N.H. 402, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mudgett-v-melvin-nh-1890.