Fellows v. Fellows
| Decision Date | 31 July 1896 |
| Citation | 44 A. 752,68 N.H. 611 |
| Parties | FELLOWS et al. v. FELLOWS. HOWE et al. v. FELLOWS et al. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Actions by Marion A. Fellows and another against Amelia R. Fellows, and De Witt C. Howe, as administrator, etc., and another, against Marion A. Fellows and another. Questions of law reserved on the pleadings. Case discharged.
Cross bills in equity. In the first case the defendant filed an answer; and the plaintiffs, a special replication. In the second case the defendants, who are the plaintiffs in the first, pleaded the pendency of that case in bar, and also filed an answer. The bills, answers, and replication allege numerous facts, nearly all of which are in dispute. Seven questions of law arising upon the pleadings are reserved.
Sargent, Hollis & Niles and William H. Sawyer, for plaintiffs in the first, and defendants in the second, case. Albin, Martin & Howe, for defendants in the first, and plaintiffs in the second, case.
All the questions reserved might not arise if the facts were found. Some of them, possibly all of them, might turn out to be immaterial. It often happens that grave and difficult questions of law arise upon pleadings, especially when they are of the character of those in these cases, which disappear upon an investigation of the facts, in these cases it is clear that the facts should be found before an attempt is made to settle the law controlling the rights of the parties. Case discharged.
CHASE, J., did not sit. The others concurred.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Glover v. Baker
...in any case, it is overruled by State v. Sawtelle, above cited. See, also, Perkins v. Langmaid, 36 N. H. 501, 506. Fellows v. Fellows, 68 N. H. 611, 44 Atl. 752, so far as it relates to the technical point relied upon in support of the motion, is authority against it. Counsel are not alone ......
-
Lemire v. Haley's Estate
...which any issues of fairness of trial may be better decided by the normal process of review than by preliminary rulings. Fellows v. Fellows, 68 N. H. 611, 44 A. 752; Morse v. Morse, 71 N.H. 622, 53 A. 1124; White Mt, etc, Co. v. Murphy, 78 N.H. 398, 403, 101 A. 357; Fitzhugh v. Grand Trunk ......
-
State v. Manchester & L. R. R.
... ... these cases, it is clear that the facts should be found before an attempt is made to settle the law controlling the rights of the parties." Fellows ... 48 A. 1107 ... v. Fellows, 68 N. H. 611, 612, 44 Atl. 752; Manufacturing Co. v. Gilford, 66 N. H. 621, 34 Atl. 154; State v. Morin, 65 N. H. 667, ... ...
-
Conn. Val. Lumber Co. v. Town of Monroe
...therefore not material to the rights of the parties (State v. Manchester & L. R. Co., 70 N. H. 421, 435, 48 Atl. 1103; Fellows v. Fellows, 68 N. H. 611, 612, 44 Atl. 752; State v. Morin, 65 N. H. 667, 23 Atl. 529). Some of the questions, however, argued in this case are essential to the rig......