Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Citation
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Parent Document
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Jurisdiction
- New Hampshire (state)
- Effective Date
- 2014-05-16
Other Sections in This Document (26)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
- Leigh Mae Friedline & a. v. Eugene Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (2014)
Full Text
620 charsConsequently, because the district division lacks jurisdiction to decide a plea of title, we hold that, when a defendant raises such a claim, the district division must provide the defendant with an opportunity to promise to enter his action in the superior court and, if so ordered, to enter a recognizance. Cf. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 161 N.H. at 802; Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 161 N.H. at 138. If the defendant fails to initiate the action in the superior court or does not enter the specified recognizance, then the district division may resume the possessory proceedings. See Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 161 N.H. at 138.