Tucker v. Lake
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
I! ill in Equity, to foreclose a mortgage of land situated in Merrimack county. The defendant’s' motion to dismiss the bill for want of jurisdiction was denied, and the plaintiff’s motion to transfer the suit to that county was granted, subject to the defendant’s exception.
1Opinion of the CourtChase, J.
The suit, being for the recovery of real property, should have been brought in Merrimack county where the property is situated. 1 Chit. Pl. 268; Worster v. Lake Compa ny, 25 N. H. 525, 530; Bay State Iron Company v. Goodall, 39 N. H. 223, 232; Bancroft v. Conant, 64 N. H. 151. The error was curable by an order transferring the suit to that county. P. S., c. 222, ss. 7, 8; Bartlett v. Lee, 60 N. H. 168; Wheeler & Wilson Mfg. Company v. Whitcomb, 62 N. H. 411. Whether justice required the order to be made, was a question of fact that was decided affirmatively at the trial term, and the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Bartlett v. LeeSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1880
- Garvin v. LegerySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1881
- Gagnon v. ConnorSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1886
- Hazen v. QuimbySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1881
- Wheeler & Wilson M'f'g Co. v. WhitcombSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1882
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Lacoss v. LebanonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1917
- McDonald v. Second National BankSupreme Court of Iowa · 1898
- Brown v. EllsworthSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1903
- Whitcher v. Union Grange Fair Ass'nSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1914
- Langdell v. Eastern Basket & Veneer Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1916
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.