Patey v. Peaslee
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
1Per curiam
The defendant maintains that since the original petition had gone to judgment, it was not subject to amendment. See Superior Court Rule 57, 99 N. H. 617. The issue of the pendency of the action was before the Trial Court at the time of the hearing, and it cannot be assumed that the status of the action was ignored. Since the order permitted the amendment, a preliminary order vacating the judgment of dismissal is to be implied. See Chabot v. Shiner, 95 N. H. 252, 255. Such an order was within the authority of the court. Lyford v. Academy, 97 N. H. 167; Bussey v. Bussey, 94 N. H. 328, 329. The…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Stewart v. HOOKSSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1953
- Manos v. PapachristCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1989
- Hollinger WillSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1945
- Menary v. WhitneySupreme Court of Iowa · 1952
- Miethe v. MietheIllinois Supreme Court · 1951
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Cornwell v. CornwellSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1976
- Riddell v. EdwardsAlaska Supreme Court · 2003
- Clooney v. ClooneySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1978
- Milne v. Burlington Homes, Inc.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1977
- In re Estate of Lucien CoutureSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 2014
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.