Case Name: DOLE, Surviving Partner, v. PIKE & a.
Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Hampshire
Decision Date: 1885-12
Citations: 64 N.H. 22
Docket Number: 
Parties: DOLE, Surviving Partner, v. PIKE & a.
Judges: Clark, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
Reporter: New Hampshire Reports
Volume: 64
Pages: 22–23

Head Matter:
DOLE, Surviving Partner, v. PIKE & a.
Whether the questions at issue in a suit at law are so complicated that a jury trial is impracticable must be determined at the trial term.
Bill in Equity, praying, among other things, for an injunction to restrain the defendants, Pike Bros. & Smith, from prosecuting a suit at law against the plaintiff, founded upon certain written contracts concerning the sale of timber, and for an accounting of the matters involved in that suit. The defendants filed several answers. Pike Bros. & Smith moved for a heaving of the questions of fact and law arising upon their answer. The main controversy between them and the plaintiff relates to the measurement of the logs delivered by them under the contracts referred to, and they contended that it was their right to have that controversy tried and settled by a jury in the suit at law brought by them for that purpose. No hearing was had; but the questions arising upon the bill, answers, and motion of Pike Bros. & Smith for a hearing, were reserved for the opinion of the court.
Drew & Jordan and Aldrich & Remich, for the plaintiff.
Ladd & Fletcher, for Pike Bros. & Smith.
J. Benton, pro se.
O. Ray, pro se.

Opinion:
Allen, J.
The bill seeks an adjustment of matters arising upon several contracts already in controversy in suits at law between some of the parties, and an accounting. The suits at law are by some of the defendants to recover a balance claimed to be due upon the performance of the contracts. The bill alleges that the rights of action upon the contracts have been assigned to other parties, who are also defendants in the bill, and claims as a ground of equitable interference the saving of a multiplicity of suits, and the inconvenience of trying complicated questions, in actions at law, by a jury. The defendants move to dismiss the bill, and that they may proceed with the trial of their suits. From what appears in the bill and answers, the court cannot say the bill is not a proper procedure and cannot be maintained. Whether the questions at issue are so complicated that a jury trial is impracticable must be determined at the trial term.
Case discharged.
Clark, J., did not sit: the others concurred.