Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

70 N.H. 622

45 A 1090

Carr v. Adams

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided June 5, 1899

Supreme Court of New Hampshire · decided 1899-06-05

Bill in Equity, for the determination of confused and uncertain boundaries between the parties. At the May trial term, 1899, the defendant moved that the plaintiff be required, under the 26th rule of court, to file a deposition taken by him of a witness, not a party, residing in Massachusetts. The court granted the motion and ordered the deposition to be filed by June 10 of that year.

Relies on Deming v. Foster

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1899-06-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently June 2012

4 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

301899190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Blodgett, C. J.

¶1 “ Upon motion to the court, the depositions which either party proposes to use on the trial are to be filed with *623 the clerk; and, after suck motion is granted, no depositions are to be used except tliose which are thus filed.” Rules of Court, No. 26. “The court may from time to time establish rules and orders of practice, consistent with the laws, for conducting and regulating its business.” P. S., c. 204, s. 5. The plaintiff lias pointed •out no inconsistency between the rule and the laws, and none exists.

¶2 But aside from the rule, the court had the power to make the order. “ Courts of justice have powers, as a necessary incident to their general jurisdiction, to make such orders in relation to the cases pending before them as are necessary to the progress of the cases and the dispatch of business.” Deming v. Foster, 42 N. H. 165, 178. The theory of the law is “that the court may make such orders in each case, from time to time, as justice may require” (11. 179); and whether justice required the making of the particular order complained of, was manifestly a question of fact for the exclusive determination of the presiding justice.

¶3 Exceptions overruled.

Chase, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
/70/nh/622 · .json · Public domain