Rice v. Holden
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
The plaintiff, at tlie November term, 1874, moved tlie circuit court for leave to bring tliis action forward from tlie docket of the supreme judicial court for said eastern judicial district, at tlie May term thereof, 1873, and for an order of notice upon the defendants by publication, property of tlie defendants having been attached on the writ in said suit, and no personal service having been made upon them, said action having been omitted from the printed docket since May…
Read the full summary
The plaintiff, at tlie November term, 1874, moved tlie circuit court for leave to bring tliis action forward from tlie docket of the supreme judicial court for said eastern judicial district, at tlie May term thereof, 1873, and for an order of notice upon the defendants by publication, property of tlie defendants having been attached on the writ in said suit, and no personal service having been made upon them, said action having been omitted from the printed docket since May term, 1873, by mistake. The defendants resisted the motion and the further prosecution of this action, on the ground…
1Concurrence
It is quite within the ordinary practice of the court to bring forward actions which have been omitted from the docket. No better reason for so doing could well be assigned than that the action had been omitted by mistake. I think the motion should be allowed.
SMITH, J. An action will be brought forward upon the docket, as a matter of course, when either party desires to be heard on any motion in respect to it. The order to bring forward decides nothing, except that the court is ready to hear the party. Russell v. Dyer, 39 N.H. 528. Whether, when this case is brought forward, the court bill…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Russell v. DyerSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1859