Tucker v. Lake
This text of 29 A. 406 (Tucker v. Lake) 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 suit, being for the recovery of real property, should have been brought in Merrimack county where the property is situated. 1 Chit. Pl. 268; Worster v. Lake Compa ny, 25 N. H. 525, 530; Bay State Iron Company v. Goodall, 39 N. H. 223, 232; Bancroft v. Conant, 64 N. H. 151. The error was curable by an order transferring the suit to that county. P. S., c. 222, ss. 7, 8; Bartlett v. Lee, 60 N. H. 168; Wheeler & Wilson Mfg. Company v. Whitcomb, 62 N. H. 411. Whether justice required the order to be made, was a question of fact that was decided affirmatively at the trial term, and the decision'is not re viewable here. Hazen v. Quimby, 61 N. H. 76; Garvin v. Legery, 61 N. H. 153; Gagnon v. Connor, 64 N. H. 276; Holman v. Manning, 65 N. H. 92.
Fxception overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
29 A. 406, 67 N.H. 193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tucker-v-lake-nh-1892.