Melvin v. Melvin

Parsons, C. J. Whether sufficient cause appears in any ease to require that an action should be brought forward and the judgment vacated, is a question of fact. *603 The evidentiary facts stated are not necessarily inconsistent with a finding that justice did not require such action in this case; consequently the dismissal of the motion presents no error of law. Fulton Pulley Co. v. Company, 71 N. H. 384; Reed v. Prescott, 70 N. H. 88; Clough v. Moore, 63 N. H. 111, 113; Warner Bank v. Clement, 58 N. H. 533. Exception overruled. Young, J., did not sit: the others concurred.