Tucker v. Lake

29 A. 406, 67 N.H. 193

Opinion

Chase, J.

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.

Cakpenteb, J., did not sit: the others concurred.