Redding v. Dodge
Redding v. Dodge.
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
Smith, J.
Kenrick was not acting as the deputy of the defendant when he attached and removed the plaintiff’s cattle. If he acted illegally in removing property into Merrimack county which he might lawfully attach in Belknap county, and selling the same upon the certificate of examiners in Merrimack county, — a point upon which we express no opinion, — yet we think it would be inequitable to enable the plaintiff by the proposed amendment to harass the defendant with this suit. Upon the facts reported, justice does not require the allowance of the proposed amendment.
Wendell v. Mugridge, 19 N. H. 109;
Balter v. Davis, 22 N. H. 27.
Case discharged.
Bingham, 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 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.