Hale v. Manchester & Keene Railroad
| Decision Date | 01 December 1881 |
| Citation | 61 N.H. 641 |
| Parties | Hale & A. v. Manchester & Keene Railroad & A. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Hillsborough
All the objections now presented to the confirmation of the sale were equally objections to ordering the sale, and it must be presumed that they were either not presented, or, if presented, were considered and overruled. By the decree ordering the sale the defendants are concluded upon all matters which were or might have been urged against that decree.
Exceptions overruled.
CLARK, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
Briggs & Huse and W. E. Chandler, for the plaintiffs. W. W. Bailey and F. A. Brooks (of Massachusetts), for the defendants.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McAllister v. Elliot
...the same, they are concluded by the former decree upon the general principle of res adjudicata. Cummings v. Parker, 63 N. H. 198; Hale v. Railroad, 61 N. H. 641; Ashuelot R. R. v. Cheshire R. R., 59 N. H. 409; Hall v. Dodge, 38 N. H. 346; 21 C. J. tit. "Equity," § 864. See, also, Burleigh v......
-
Cox v. Leviston
...original exceptions, will be denied upon the ground that the matter has been adjudicated. Wright v. Boynton, 40 N. H. 353, 357; Hale v. Railroad Co., 61 N. H. 641. 2. The conclusion that "there is reason to believe a mistake was made in the finding of 'no way by prescription for the plainti......