Perkins v. Exeter Associates, Inc.
| Decision Date | 06 July 1956 |
| Parties | A. W. PERKINS et al. v. EXETER ASSOCIATES, Inc. William H. SLEEPER v. A. W. PERKINS et al. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Burns, Calderwood & Bryant and Robert E. Hinchey, Dover, for A. W. and Fletcher B. Perkins.
Sleeper & Mullavey, Exeter, William H. Sleeper, Exeter, orally, for Exeter Associates, Inc. and William H. Sleeper.
It is well established in our state that the Superior Court may order a consolidation of suits or some other convenient procedure which will protect the rights of the parties involved. Meloon v. Read, 73 N.H. 153, 59 A. 946; Allbee v. Elms, 93 N.H. 202, 204, 37 A.2d 790; Lynch v. Bissell, 99 N.H. 473, 474, 117 A.2d 121. The test is what on the whole justice requires. Tinkham v. Boston & M. Railroad, 77 N.H. 111, 88 A. 709. In the absence of a showing of an abuse of discretion the decision of the Trial Court will be sustained. Sweeney v. Willette, 98 N.H. 512, 513, 104 A.2d 398; Bowers, Judicial Discretion of Trial Courts, 161.
The Court in its modification order stated that 'the amount of timber cut on the lot of William H. Sleeper * * * appears to be a matter in dispute in both actions.' That conclusion is supported by the record and justifies the procedure adopted by the Court to protect the rights of all parties involved.
We have examined the record before us. It consists of documents on file in Superior Court, arguments of counsel relative thereto, and orders of the Court thereon. We find nothing in this record to indicate prejudice to Exeter Associates, Inc., or to William H. Sleeper in the denial of their motion that the time within which to file a proposed reserved case or bill of exceptions be extended until the hearings had been transcribed. Superior Court Rule 57, 99 N.H. 617.
Exceptions overruled.
All concurred.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sibson v. Robert's Exp., Inc.
...against them upon the ground that they did not seek to have the insurer made party to the pending actions. See Perkins v. Exeter Associates, 100 N.H. 247, 123 A.2d 825. On the contrary, responsibility for seasonable presentation of its claim ought to rest upon the insurer itself, since it h......
-
Associated Home Utilities, Inc. v. Town of Bedford
...947 (1905). This is a discretionary power and its exercise is limited only by the requirements of justice. See Perkins v. Associates, 100 N.H. 247, 248, 123 A.2d 825, 826 (1956). Only if the court is plainly wrong will we interfere with its exercise of this discretion. Id., 123 A.2d at 826;......
-
Waumbec Mills, Inc. v. Bahnson Service Co.
...In view of all the circumstances, the Court's order making Employers a party plaintiff was within its discretion. Perkins v. Exeter Associates, 100 N.H. 247, 248, 123 A.2d 825. It follows the order Remanded. All concurred. ...
-
Maryland Cas. Co. v. Waumbec Mills, Inc.
...discretion, and the presumption is that it was. Vallee v. Spaulding Fibre Company, 89 N.H. 285, 291, 197 A. 697; Perkins v. Exster Associates, 100 N.H. 247, 123 A.2d 825. The exceptions to the ruling are accordingly The remaining and principal issue concerns Maryland's alleged obligation to......