Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

PEARSON v. NORTHERN RAILROAD a.

Ordinarily the question whether a supplemental answer in chancery shall be rejected on motion of the plaintiff, being one of convenient procedure, is to be determined at the trial term; but the whole court, in a plain case, may revise the decision there made.

ALLEN, J.

The question is one of convenient procedure, and the trial of the issues on the supplemental answers in the case would be so inconvenient that the answers ought to be rejected. Clough v. Fellows, ante 134. Ordinarily the question of convenience is to be determined at the trial term. But in this case, as in Clough v. Fellows, the inconvenience is so plain, the motion to reject the answers should have been granted.

Exceptions sustained.

SMITH, BLODGETT, CARPENTER, and BINGHAM, JJ., did not sit: the others concurred.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

PEARSON v. RAILROAD
(Dec 1, 1885)