History
  • No items yet
midpage
Tucker v. Lake
29 A. 406
| N.H. | 1892
|
Check Treatment

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 Company, 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 reviewable 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.

Exception overruled.

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

Case Details

Case Name: Tucker v. Lake
Court Name: Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Date Published: Jun 5, 1892
Citation: 29 A. 406
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.