TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Redding v. Dodge

Redding v. Dodge.

Redding v. Dodge, 59 N.H. 98 (1879)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of New Hampshire · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 5, 1879
Judges
Smith, Bingham
Citations
59 N.H. 98
Headnotes
Amendments are not allowed when injustice will be done thereby.
Summary
Trespass, for the forcible taking and carrying away of the plaintiff’s cattle. Facts found by a referee. The defendant was, at the time of the taking complained of, and since has been, sheriff of Merrimack county, and one Kenrick was his deputy. Kenrick was also deputy of the sheriff of Belknap county. Kenrick, at S. in Belknap county, attached the plaintiff’s cattle upon a writ against one D., returnable in Merrimack county, which is the taking complained of. On the same day Kenrick drove the cattle to F. in Merrimack county, and five days later sold the same, as a deputy of the defendant, upon the certificate of examiners, and made return of his doings upon the writ. The declaration charges the defendant with the forcible taking and carrying away of the plaintiff’s cattle in S. in the county of Belknap. The plaintiff moved to amend by alleging the taking, &c., to have been done in F. in the county of Merrimack.

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

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.

1881–1882: 21885–1886: 21891–1892: 118812026peak 1881 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Owen v. Weston4 A. 801 (N.H. 1885)
  2. Garvin v. Legery61 N.H. 153 (1881)
  3. Hardy v. Nye3 A. 631 (N.H. 1885)
  4. Edes v. Herrick61 N.H. 60 (1881)
  5. Morgan v. Joyce30 A. 1119 (N.H. 1891)

Most recent

  1. Morgan v. Joyce30 A. 1119 (N.H. 1891)
  2. Hardy v. Nye3 A. 631 (N.H. 1885)
  3. Owen v. Weston4 A. 801 (N.H. 1885)
  4. Garvin v. Legery61 N.H. 153 (1881)
  5. Edes v. Herrick61 N.H. 60 (1881)

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.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list