Vallee v. Spaulding Fibre Co., 199 A. 894 (N.H. 1938). · Go Syfert
Vallee v. Spaulding Fibre Co., 199 A. 894 (N.H. 1938). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
2 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Taylor v. Nutting (2×)
N.H. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
Lange , 263 Minn, at 156, 116 N.W.2d at 269 . “[Adjudication aims at a correct decision, and if [an appellate court] is convinced that the first decision was palpably wrong, the doctrine of the law of the case [does] not preclude correction of the error.” Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 0.404[1], at 121; see Vallee v. Company, 89 N.H. 558, 558 , 199 A. 894, 894 (1938) (once questions of law are decided on appeal, they will not be reexamined upon a subsequent appeal unless equity and justice require it).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Eugene Vallee
v.
Spaulding Fibre Company.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire.
Jun 7, 1938.
199 A. 894
Ovilla J. Gregoire and William H. Sleeper, by brief, for the plaintiff., Hughes & Burns and Charles F. Hartnett {Mr. Burns orally), for the defendant.
PER CURIAM..
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
Per Curiam.

The amendment by the trial court of its original decree clears the doubt whether the amount of compensation thereby awarded was determined as a matter of discretion. It now appearing that discretion was then exercised, no ground for a retrial of the issue of compensation is presented, and, hence, none for acting on the requests for rulings and findings. The decision in this court upon the former transfer affirmed the trial court’s decree if the amount of the award was fixed in discretion. If, and not how, there was use of discretion, was the only condition of the affirmance.

In the former transfer no motion was made for a rehearing after the opinion was filed. So far as the defendant now seeks to obtain a modification of the decision of this court in that transfer, it is “the long established practice of this court, that questions of law once decided will not be reexamined upon a subsequent transfer, especially where equity and justice do not require it.” Kidd v. Company, 75 N. H. 154, 158. No facts appear warranting such reexamination.

Exceptions overruled.