Pickett v. King
4 N.H. 212
Opinion
We are of opinion that the motion of the demandants cannot be legally sustained. The cases to which we have been referred seem to show the practice to be in Massachusetts, to strike out the name of a party by way of amendment. But the practice is believed to be peculiar to that state. No authority is cited to warrant it in the cases which have been cited. In this state no such practice has ever prevailed.
Leave to amend refused, and demandants nonsuit.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Pickett v. King, 4 N.H. 212 (N.H. Super. Ct. 1827).
4 N.H. 212 (Pickett v. King) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Rand v. Dodge
12 N.H. 67 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1841)