Warner Bank v. Clement & Co.

58 N.H. 533
Supreme Court of New Hampshire·Decided March 5, 1879·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Stanley, J.

There is no doubt of the power of the court in any case, for sufficient cause, to bring forward an action and vacate the judgment rendered therein. Bellows v. Stone, 14 N. H. 175; Frink v. Frink, 43 N. H. 508; Hillsborough v. Nichols, 46 N. H. 379; Judge of Probate v. Webster, 46 N. H. 518; Stickney v. Davis, 17 Pick. 170; McClew v. Burt, 5 Met. 200.

What is sufficient cause is a question of fact, depending upon the particular circumstances of each case. These should be established by evidence at the trial term.

Case discharged.

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Warner Bank v. Clement & Co., 58 N.H. 533 (N.H. 1879).

58 N.H. 533 (Warner Bank v. Clement & Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lamarre v. Lamarre
152 A. 272 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1930)
Raymond v. Goodrich
116 A. 38 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1921)
Melvin v. Melvin
58 A. 835 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1904)
Fairfield v. Day
55 A. 219 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1903)
Fulton Pulley Co. v. Bates MacHine Co.
52 A. 457 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1902)
Owen v. Weston
4 A. 801 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1885)
McDermott v. Hayes
60 N.H. 9 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1880)