Writ oe Entry, to foreclose a mortgage. After the decision reported in 64 N. H. 385 was rendered, the plaintiff filed a surrejoinder, alleging that one of the notes secured by the mortgage was not included in the former conditional judgment thereon. The defendant demurred. The plaintiff moved to bring forward the former action for the correction of the judgment. Facts found by the court.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1889-06-05
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently November 1930
3 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
¶1
The power to set aside, modify, or amend judgments for .sufficient- cause being unquestionable (
Clough
v.
Moore,
63 N. H. 112,
Eastman
v.
Concord,
64 N. H. 265), the only question arising in this class of cases is, whether such cause is shown. This question, from its nature, depends upon the particular circumstances of each case, and is therefore one of fact to be determined at the trial term
(Bank
v. Clement, 58 N. H. 534,
Clough
v.
Moore,
supra) ; and when so determined no question of law is raised by a general exception to the result.
Fox
v.
Tuftonborough,
58 N. H. 19;
Fuller
v.
Bailey,
58 N. H. 71;
Lefavor
v.
Smith,
58 N. H. 125;
Whitcher
v.
Dexter,
61 N. H. 91;
Eastman
v.
Concord, supra.
¶2
Nothing appears in the case at ba'r which takes it out of the general rule, that decisions in the trial terms upon questions of fact will not be reconsidered in the law term, and when the judgment in the former action is corrected the demurrer should be overruled.
