This page is an unofficial LFoD record and is not legal advice. Verify the document against the official source before relying on it.
Warner Bank v. Clement & Co.
March 1, 1879 - Opinion
Case records
Open case page| Date | Record Text | Type | Party | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| March 1, 1879 | Warner Bank v. Clement & Co. Current page | Opinion | Supreme Court | Reporter |
Warner Bank v. Clement & Co.
Whether an action should be brought forward and the judgment vacated is a question of fact to be decided at the trial term. ^
Debt, on a judgment recovered in 1868. One of the defendants moves that the original action in which the judgment was rendered, be brought forward, and the judgment vacated.
Rolfe, for the plaintiffs.
Mugridge, for the defendants.
Stanley, J.
There is no doubt of the power of the court in any case, for sufficient cause, to bring forward an action and vacate the judgment rendered therein. Bellows v. Stone, 14 N. H. 175; Frink v. Frink, 43 N. H. 508; Hillsborough v. Nichols, 46 N. H. 379; Judge of Probate v. Webster, 46 N. H. 518; Stickney v. Davis, 17 Pick. 170; McClew v. Burt, 5 Met. 200.
What is sufficient cause is a question of fact, depending upon the particular circumstances of each case. These should be established by evidence at the trial term.
Case discharged.
Foster, J., did not sit: the others concurred.