Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Pearson v. Tower

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided December 9, 1874Published

The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the chief justice.

1Concurrence

The allegation in the bill, that the acts complained of were in violation of law, is not admitted by the demurrer. Matter of law is not, in equity any more than at law, a proper subject of substantive averment, or of traverse or avoidance, and, consequently, not a subject of admission in the pleadings. It is the province of the court to apply the law to the facts alleged, and I have not been able to find anything in the general laws of this state whereby the deposit of corporate funds by the directors of a railroad corporation, in the way complained of here, is prohibited. Of course, it is to…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Merrill v. PlainfieldSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1863

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API