Warner Bank v. Clement & Co.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Debt, on a judgment recovered in 1868. One of the defendants moves that the original action in which the judgment was rendered, be brought forward, and the judgment vacated.
1Opinion of the CourtStanley, J.
There is no doubt of the power of the court in any case, for sufficient cause, to bring forward an action and vacate the judgment rendered therein. Bellows v. Stone, 14 N. H. 175; Frink v. Frink, 43 N. H. 508; Hillsborough v. Nichols, 46 N. H. 379; Judge of Probate v. Webster, 46 N. H. 518; Stickney v. Davis, 17 Pick. 170; McClew v. Burt, 5 Met. 200.
What is sufficient cause is a question of fact, depending upon the particular circumstances of each case. These should be established by evidence at the trial term.
Case discharged.
Foster, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
2Cited by7 opinions
- Owen v. WestonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1885
- Lamarre v. LamarreSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1930
- Raymond v. GoodrichSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1921
- Melvin v. MelvinSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1904
- Fulton Pulley Co. v. Bates MacHine Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1902
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.