History
  • No items yet
midpage
Pearson v. Northern Railroad
63 N.H. 534
| N.H. | 1885
|
Check Treatment

The question is one of convenient procedure, and the trial of the issues on the supplemental answers in the case would be so inconvenient that the answers ought to be rejected. Clough v. Fellows, ante 134. Ordinarily the question of convenience is to be determined at the trial term. But in this case, as in Clough v. Fellows, the inconvenience is so plain, the motion to reject the answers should have been granted.

Exceptions sustained.

SMITH, BLODGETT, CARPENTER, and BINGHAM, JJ., did not sit: the others concurred.

Case Details

Case Name: Pearson v. Northern Railroad
Court Name: Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Date Published: Dec 5, 1885
Citation: 63 N.H. 534
Court Abbreviation: N.H.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.