93 A. 460
Supreme Court of New Hampshire Merrimack.
Decided February 2, 1915.
PETITION FOR PARTITION. At the April term, 1914, of the superior court, the plaintiff’s motion that the answer to the petition be disallowed was denied by Branch, J., subject to exception.
Joseph S. Matthews (by brief and orally), for the plaintiff.
George V. Hill (by brief and orally), for the defendant.
Per Curiam.
It was conceded at the argument that there was no legal objection to a physical partition of the premises. Whether the premises can be so divided is a question of fact for the trial court. Laws 1913, c. 21, s. 3. As there appears to be little, if any, doubt
Page 602
that in fact such division can be made without great prejudice or inconvenience, ordinary convenience in procedure requires the determination of that question before discussion of the proposition whether upon the facts stated a sale of the whole can be ordered.
Case discharged.
53 N.H. 442 Superior Court of Judicature of New Hampshire. BROWN v. COLLINS. June, 1873.…
131 A. 353 FLORENCE E. WOLCOTT, by her next friend, v. WILLIAM E. FELLOWS a.…
29 A. 846 DOW v. HARKIN.Supreme Court of New Hampshire Hillsborough. Decided December, 1892. If…
433 A.2d 1266 BARRINGTON EAST CLUSTER I UNIT OWNERS' ASSOCIATION a. v. TOWN OF BARRINGTON…
312 A.2d 698 KATHERINE PIPER v. ROBERT FICKETT, d.b.a. FICKETT'S JEWELERS No. 6599Supreme Court of…
358 A.2d 412 DOROTHY C. RUANE INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF JOHN…