Case Name: Fellows & a. v. Fellows; Howe, Adm'r, & a., v. Fellows & a.
Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Hampshire
Decision Date: 1896-06
Citations: 68 N.H. 611
Docket Number: 
Parties: Fellows & a. v. Fellows. Howe, Adm’r, & a., v. Fellows & a.
Judges: Chase, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
Reporter: New Hampshire Reports
Volume: 68
Pages: 611–612

Head Matter:
Merrimack,
June, 1896.
Fellows & a. v. Fellows. Howe, Adm’r, & a., v. Fellows & a.
Cross-bills in Equity. In the first case the defendant filed an answer and the plaintiff's a special replication. In the second case the defendants, wbo are the plaintiffs in the first, pleaded the pendency of that case in bar, and also filed an answer. The bills, answers, and replication allege numerous facts, nearly all of which are in dispute. Seven questions of law arising upon the pleadings were reserved.
Sargent, Hollis Mies and William H. Sawyer, for the plaintiffs in the first, and the defendants in the second case.
Albin, Marlin Howe, for the defendant in the first, and the plaintiffs in the second case.

Opinion:
Carpenter, C. J.
All the questions reserved might not arise if the facts were found. Some of them, possibly all of them, might turn out to be immaterial. It often happens that grave and difficult questions of law arise upon pleadings, especially when they are of the character of those in these cases, which disappear upon an investigation of the facts. In these cases, it is clear that the facts should be found before an attempt is made to settle the law controlling the rights of the parties.
Case discharged.
Chase, J., did not sit: the others concurred.