Logue v. Clark
Logue v. Clark & A.
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
STANLEY, J.
A writ of certiorari is not ordinarily granted when the plaintiff has other ample and convenient remedies for the establishment and protection of his rights.
Huse v. Grimes, 2 N. H. 208, 212;
Tucker’s Petition, 27 N. H. 405, 409;
Landaff’s Petition.
84 N. H. 163, 173;
Peters v. Peters, 8 Cush. 529 . The plaintiff’s remedy by appeal would have afforded him all the redress that he seeks by this proceeding. G. L., c.
207, s.
1;
Moses v. Julian, 45 N. 52, 54.
As it does not appear that injustice was done by the decree of the judge of probate, the motion to amend the petition so that it may be regarded as an application for leave to appeal, under Gen. Laws, c.
207, ss.
7, 9, is denied.
Holton v. Olcott, 58 N. H. 598;
Bolles v. Dalton, 59 N. H. 479;
Redding v. Dodge, 59 N. H. 98;
Edes v. Herrick, 61 N. H. 60, 61.
Petition dismissed.
All concurred.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 5 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.