Penrich, Inc. v. Sullivan, 140 N.H. 583 (1995)

Citation: Penrich, Inc. v. Sullivan, 140 N.H. 583 (1995)
Parent Document: Penrich, Inc. v. Sullivan, 140 N.H. 583 (1995)
Jurisdiction: New Hampshire (state)
Effective Date: 1995-12-29
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8091585/penrich-inc-v-sullivan/ ↗

Full Text

1,316 chars

The defendants also contend that the superior court should have declined to exercise its equity jurisdiction in granting the petition for declaratory judgment because the plaintiff had an adequate remedy at law. The defendants first raised this objection in their motion to reconsider the decision of the superior court, more than four years after Penrich filed the petition for declaratory judgment and after this court first reviewed the case in Penrich I. We have long recognized the principle that “issues [should] be raised at the earliest possible time, because trial forums should have a full opportunity to come to sound conclusions and to correct errors in the first instance.” Sklar Realty v. Town of Merrimack, 125 N.H. 321, 328, 480 A.2d 149, 153 (1984). “[T]he rationale behind the rule is that trial forums should have an opportunity to rule on issues and to correct errors before they are presented to the appellate court.” State v. Tselios, 134 N.H. 405, 407, 593 A.2d 243, 245 (1991). The defendants state that they failed to raise this claim earlier in the proceedings before the case initially came before this court “[o]ut of concern that the plaintiff would somehow initiate eviction proceedings.” Having made this tactical decision, the defendants cannot now raise the issue at this late stage.

Other Sections in This Document (25)

Full Text