This page is an unofficial LFoD record and is not legal advice. Verify the document against the official source before relying on it.
Dorr v. Leach
December 1, 1876 - Opinion
Case records
Open case page| Date | Record Text | Type | Party | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| December 1, 1876 | Dorr v. Leach Current page | Opinion | Supreme Court | Reporter |
Dorr v. Leach.
A suit on a mortgage, made by the defendant to the plaintiff, cannot be contested by a third person admitted to defend it, who claims a superior title not derived from either of the parties, and who cannot be affected by a judgment in favor of either of them.
Entry, on a mortgage made by the defendant to the plaintiff. The defendant made no defence. One Plumer, who had been admitted to defend the action, offered to prove that he had a good title to the demanded premises, not derived from the plaintiff or the defendant, and that the defendant, having no title, could convey none to the plaintiff.
Hill, Weed, and Smith, for the plaintiff.
Lougee and Copeland, for Plumer.
Stanley, J.
Plumer ought not to have been admitted to defend. He has no interest in this suit. There is no way in which he will be prejudiced, or his rights affected, by the judgment. The evidence of his title was therefore irrelevant and inadmissible. Buckman v. Buckman, 4 N. H. 319; Blaisdell v. Ladd, 14 N. H. 129; Boscawen v. Canterbury, 23 N. H. 188; Pike v. Pike, 24 N. H. 384; Dunbar v. Starkey, 19 N. H. 160.
Motion denied.