Hickey v. Dole
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
In Equity. After a decree rendered in favor of the plaintiff for a conveyance of realty and the recovery of a sum of money (ante, p. 336), a question arose between the defendants as to the portion of that sum which each of them should contribute.
1Opinion of the CourtDoe, C. J.
A defendant may have affirmative relief against the plaintiff. Clark v. Clark, 62 N. H. 267, 268, 272; Cox v. Leviston, 63 N. H. 283, 287. Both parties are entitled to just and convenient procedure. Pearson v. Railroad, 63 N. H. 534; Boody v. Watson, 64 N. H. 162, 171-174, 178, 179. The defendants’ situation is such that justice and convenience require in this suit an adjustment of their conflicting claims in regard to contribution. It is not suggested that the plaintiff has any interest in their controversy. if they ask delay in the enforcement of his decree, the reasonableness of delay will…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Boody v. WatsonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1886
- Cox v. LevistonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1884
- Clark v. ClarkSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1882
- Pearson v. Northern RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1885
3Cited by2 opinions
- Lacoss v. LebanonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1917
- Carter v. BerryMississippi Supreme Court · 1962