Melvin v. Melvin
Melvin v. Melvin.
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
Parsons, C. J.
Whether sufficient cause appears in any ease to require that an action should be brought forward and the judgment vacated, is a question of fact.
*603 The evidentiary facts stated are not necessarily inconsistent with a finding that justice did not require such action in this case; consequently the dismissal of the motion presents no error of law.
Fulton Pulley Co.
v. Company, 71 N. H. 384;
Reed v. Prescott, 70 N. H. 88;
Clough v. Moore, 63 N. H. 111, 113;
Warner Bank v. Clement, 58 N. H. 533.
Exception overruled.
Young, 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 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.