From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Warner Bank v. Clement Co

Supreme Court of New Hampshire Merrimack
Mar 1, 1879
58 N.H. 533 (N.H. 1879)

Opinion

Decided March, 1879.

Whether an action should be brought forward and the judgment vacated is a question of fact to be decided at the trial term.

DEBT, on a judgment recovered in 1868. One of the defendants moves that the original action in which the judgment was rendered be brought forward, and the judgment vacated.

Rolfe, for the plaintiffs.

Mugridge, for the defendants.


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.


Summaries of

Warner Bank v. Clement Co

Supreme Court of New Hampshire Merrimack
Mar 1, 1879
58 N.H. 533 (N.H. 1879)
Case details for

Warner Bank v. Clement Co

Case Details

Full title:WARNER BANK v. CLEMENT Co

Court:Supreme Court of New Hampshire Merrimack

Date published: Mar 1, 1879

Citations

58 N.H. 533 (N.H. 1879)

Citing Cases

Thompson v. Phillips Exeter Academy

Massachusetts Bonding Co. v. Keefe, 100 N.H. 361, 363; Indian Head Bank v. Theriault, 96 N.H. 23, 27. Good…

Reed v. Prescott

The plaintiff's remedy is an application to the probate court to vacate the decree accepting the…