Vezina v. Vezina
This text of 62 A.2d 756 (Vezina v. Vezina) 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 present proceedings are a continuation of the original litigation and under our laws may be taken upon constructive notice such as was given here. Cowles v. Cowles, 80 N. H. 530; Bussey v. Bussey, 94 N. H. 328, 330. It appears, therefore, that if the court obtained jurisdiction in the original proceedings, the libelee’s motion to dismiss the present petition for lack of jurisdiction was properly denied.
The libelee appeared by counsel in the original proceedings and himself signed a stipulation which covered both custody and support for the child. This stipulation dealing generally with matters concerning the divorce proceedings and invoking the aid of the court to integrate them in a binding decree (Eaton v. Eaton, 90 N. H. 4, and cases cited), portions of which were beneficial to the libelee, is sufficient to hold that he submitted to jurisdiction and may not now object. Dolber v. Young, 81 N. H. 157; Robinson v. Potter, 43 N. H. 188, 190, 191; Noyes v. Noyes, 110 Vt. 511; 6 C. J. S., Appearances, ss. 12, i (1) 13.
Exception overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
62 A.2d 756, 95 N.H. 297, 1948 N.H. LEXIS 242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vezina-v-vezina-nh-1948.