Webster v. Bridgewater
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Motion, by N. H. Weeks, and one hundred aud eighty others, petitioners for a new highway in Bridgewater and New Hampton, for leave to withdraw, and to amend the petition by striking out their names on the payment of costs. The other petitioners, seventy-three in number, oppose the motion.
Read the full summary
Motion, by N. H. Weeks, and one hundred aud eighty others, petitioners for a new highway in Bridgewater and New Hampton, for leave to withdraw, and to amend the petition by striking out their names on the payment of costs. The other petitioners, seventy-three in number, oppose the motion. After the filing and reference of the petition, the towns of Bridgewater and New Hampton made application to the commissioners for an apportionment of the expense of any highway that might be established, upon Plymouth, Ashland, and Bristol. The petitioners making this motion nearly all reside in the three…
1Opinion of the Court
Blodgett. J.
The granting of the motion was not erroneous. The rule in this state is, that a plaintiff, before opening his case to the jury, may become nonsuit as a matter of right (Farr v. Cate, 58 N. H. 367); and the rule also applies to any other tribunal which is equivalent to a jury. Fulford v. Converse, 54 N. H. 543, 544. Such being its extent, it cannot be fairly held that the rule does not include highway petitions to the court, in which the petitioners stand in the light of joint plaintiffs (Parker, J., in Burnham v. Steele, 8 N. H. 184), and the commissioners fill the ordinary place…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Stebbins v. Lancashire Ins.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1879
- Farr v. CateSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1878
3Cited by2 opinions
- Simpson v. GafneySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1891
- Leonard v. FaheySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1934