Redding v. Dodge
This text of 59 N.H. 98 (Redding v. Dodge) 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
Kenrick was not acting as the deputy of the defendant when he attached and removed the plaintiff’s cattle. If he acted illegally in removing property into Merrimack county which he might lawfully attach in Belknap county, and selling the same upon the certificate of examiners in Merrimack county, — a point upon which we express no opinion, — yet we think it would be inequitable to enable the plaintiff by the proposed amendment to harass the defendant with this suit. Upon the facts reported, justice does not require the allowance of the proposed amendment. Wendell v. Mugridge, 19 N. H. 109; Balter v. Davis, 22 N. H. 27.
Case discharged.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
59 N.H. 98, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/redding-v-dodge-nh-1879.