Pearson v. Northern Railroad
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
This is the same case decided at the June term, 1883, reported in 62 N. H. In the original bill, it was alleged, among other things, that the directors of the Concord Railroad, one of the defendants, of whom some were directors also of the Northern and Concord & Claremont railroads, other defendants, had, collusively, agreed to allow and pay certain fraudulent claims of those corporations against the Concord Railroad; and the plaintiff, prosecuting the bill for himself and…
Read the full summary
This is the same case decided at the June term, 1883, reported in 62 N. H. In the original bill, it was alleged, among other things, that the directors of the Concord Railroad, one of the defendants, of whom some were directors also of the Northern and Concord & Claremont railroads, other defendants, had, collusively, agreed to allow and pay certain fraudulent claims of those corporations against the Concord Railroad; and the plaintiff, prosecuting the bill for himself and the stockholders of the latter corporation, sought an injunction against the allowance and payment of the claims. Since…
1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.
The question is one of convenient procedure, and the trial of the issues on the supplemental answers in the case would be so inconvenient that the answers ought to be rejected. Clough v. Fellows, ante 134. Ordinarily the question of convenience is to be determined at the trial term. But in this case, as in Clough v. Fellows, the inconvenience is so plain, the motion to reject the answers should have been granted.
Exceptions sustained.
Smith, Blodgett, Cabhenteb, and Bingham, JJ., did not sit: the others concurred.
2Cited by2 opinions
- Owen v. WestonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1885
- Hickey v. DoleSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1891