History
  • No items yet
midpage
Monroe v. Connecticut River Lumber Co.
32 A. 152
| N.H. | 1891
|
Check Treatment

The question of fact, whether Van Dyke was made a party for the sole purpose of preventing a removal of the action, etc., can finally be determined only by the federal court. Burlington, c., Railway Co. v. Dunn,122 U.S. 513. Whether it is or is not expedient to try the question here is a question of fact for the trial term.

Case discharged.

SMITH, J., did not sit: the others concurred. *Page 629

Case Details

Case Name: Monroe v. Connecticut River Lumber Co.
Court Name: Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Date Published: Jun 5, 1891
Citation: 32 A. 152
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.