Pearson v. Northern Railroad

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Pearson v. Northern Railroad

4 A. 388, 63 N.H. 534

CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire

DecidedDecember 5, 1885

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 4 A. 388 (Pearson v. Northern Railroad) 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

Pearson v. Northern Railroad, 4 A. 388, 63 N.H. 534 (N.H. 1885).

Pincite

Opinion

Allen, J.

The question is one of convenient procedure, and the trial of the issues on the supplemental answers in the case would be so inconvenient that the answers ought to be rejected. Clough v. Fellows, ante 134. Ordinarily the question of convenience is to be determined at the trial term. But in this case, as in Clough v. Fellows, the inconvenience is so plain, the motion to reject the answers should have been granted.

Exceptions sustained.

Smith, Blodgett, Cabhenteb, and Bingham, JJ., did not sit: the others concurred.

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

Allen, J.

The question is one of convenient procedure, and the trial of the issues on the supplemental answers in the case would be so inconvenient that the answers ought to be rejected. Clough v. Fellows, ante 134. Ordinarily the question of convenience is to be determined at the trial term. But in this case, as in Clough v. Fellows, the inconvenience is so plain, the motion to reject the answers should have been granted.

Exceptions sustained.

Smith, Blodgett, Cabhenteb, and Bingham, JJ., did not sit: the others concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A. 388, 63 N.H. 534, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pearson-v-northern-railroad-nh-1885.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack