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
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2681753/leigh-mae-friedline-a-v-eugene-roe/ ↗

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

488 chars

We need not decide whether both of the defendant’s claims raised a plea
of title because it is evident that the defendant’s first claim involved a challenge
to the title to the property. See Gibson v. LaClair, 135 N.H. 129, 131 (1991);
Blevens v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co., 116 N.H. 247, 247 (1976).
Nonetheless, the district division did not provide the defendant with the
opportunity to enter his action in superior court, nor did it address the issue of
recognizance. This was error.