Case Name: Tucker v. Lake
Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Hampshire
Decision Date: 1892-06
Citations: 67 N.H. 193
Docket Number: 
Parties: Tucker v. Lake.
Judges: Cakpenteb, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
Reporter: New Hampshire Reports
Volume: 67
Pages: 193–194

Head Matter:
Tucker v. Lake.
A bill in equity to foreclose a mortgage of real property is a local action. If a suit in equity is begun in a wrong county, the error may be cured by transferring it to the proper county.
I! ill in Equity, to foreclose a mortgage of land situated in Merrimack county. The defendant’s' motion to dismiss the bill for want of jurisdiction was denied, and the plaintiff’s motion to transfer the suit to that county was granted, subject to the defendant’s exception.
Arthur 0. Fuller, for the plaintiff.
Albin Martin, for the defendant.

Opinion:
Chase, J.
The suit, being for the recovery of real property, should have been brought in Merrimack county where the property is situated. 1 Chit. Pl. 268; Worster v. Lake Company, 25 N. H. 525, 530; Bay State Iron Company v. Goodall, 39 N. H. 223, 232; Bancroft v. Conant, 64 N. H. 151. The error was curable by an order transferring the suit to that county. P. S., c. 222, ss. 7, 8; Bartlett v. Lee, 60 N. H. 168; Wheeler & Wilson Mfg. Company v. Whitcomb, 62 N. H. 411. Whether justice required the order to be made, was a question of fact that was decided affirmatively at the trial term, and the decision'is not re viewable here. Hazen v. Quimby, 61 N. H. 76; Garvin v. Legery, 61 N. H. 153; Gagnon v. Connor, 64 N. H. 276; Holman v. Manning, 65 N. H. 92.
Fxception overruled.
Cakpenteb, J., did not sit: the others concurred.