Pike v. Emerson

5 N.H. 393

Opinion

Ff '> r £.

e’^’c u ’ ’ ryi’o ic.ncy ha ⅝ e"tho,h'r b’ ^a " "we "a " ’ ’i ⅛, m a wu&wkey; ic. b'ad'd che’ 1, '"i , 1, a ’’ "W' wit rmy, m many t ' a-, 1 " c < M rec¿l S A i%n fwawri pwebee 01 ; 'bn ' ' * '-'v c 'p«-u fm r -'vc' v p-j^g ughc or roma 7 *" 0 r a -> r ^ wp vM ’ w i,, yrh p ca^c a ur ’ ~f w co ill’'1 rn w'rcd b 1 an agreement by m atm’ rr to r Me *■ c ’ 1 e 1 ’ M uheg uprr h.v (-’lent 2, N.H. Rep. 520, Alton c. Gilmanton; 1 H. Bl. Camden v. Edie; 17 Johns. 461, Yates v. Russell; 12 Mass. Rep. 47, Haske;; v. Whitney; 16 Mass. Rep. 396, Buckland v. Conway ; 7 Cranch, 136, Holker v. Parker ; 4 N. H. Rep. 370, Fernald v. Ladd ; 7 Cowen, 744 ; 6 Cowen, 387.

The court has tire power, without doubt, in ease of fraud or mistake, to relieve a party from the effects of such an agreement. But while an agreement like that made by these parties in the court below, remains unini-peached, we are of opinion that no appeal can be prosecuted here.

Appeal dismissed.