History
  • No items yet
midpage
Melvin v. Melvin
73 N.H. 602
| N.H. | 1904
|
Check Treatment

Whether sufficient cause appears in any case to require that an action should be brought forward and the judgment vacated, is a question of fact. *Page 603

The evidentiary facts stated are not necessarily inconsistent with a finding that justice did not require such action in this case; consequently the dismissal of the motion presents no error of law. Fulton Pulley Co. v. Company, 71 N.H. 384; Reed v. Prescott, 70 N.H. 88; Clough v. Moore,63 N.H. 111, 113; Warner Bank v. Clement, 58 N.H. 533.

Exception overruled.

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

Case Details

Case Name: Melvin v. Melvin
Court Name: Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Date Published: Jul 2, 1904
Citation: 73 N.H. 602
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.