Tucker v. Lake
Tucker v. Lake.
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Chase, J.
The suit, being for the recovery of real property, should have been brought in Merrimack county where the property is situated. 1 Chit. Pl. 268;
Worster v. Lake Compa ny, 25 N. H. 525, 530;
Bay State Iron Company v. Goodall, 39 N. H. 223, 232;
Bancroft v. Conant, 64 N. H. 151. The error was curable by an order transferring the suit to that county. P. S., c.
222, ss.
7, 8;
Bartlett v. Lee, 60 N. H. 168;
Wheeler & Wilson Mfg. Company v. Whitcomb, 62 N. H. 411. Whether justice required the order to be made, was a question of fact that was decided affirmatively at the trial term, and the decision'is not re viewable here.
Hazen v. Quimby, 61 N. H. 76;
Garvin v. Legery, 61 N. H. 153;
Gagnon v. Connor, 64 N. H. 276;
Holman v. Manning, 65 N. H. 92.
Fxception overruled.
Cakpenteb, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 6 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.