Woodstock Soapstone Co. v. Carleton, 133 N.H. 809 (1991)

Citation: Woodstock Soapstone Co. v. Carleton, 133 N.H. 809 (1991)
Parent Document: Woodstock Soapstone Co. v. Carleton, 133 N.H. 809 (1991)
Jurisdiction: New Hampshire (state)
Effective Date: 1991-01-28
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8090733/woodstock-soapstone-co-v-carleton/ ↗

Full Text

851 chars

Carleton filed a landlord/tenant action in the district court seeking to evict Woodstock from the property. Woodstock filed a petition in superior court seeking determination of the tax issue and specific performance of the purchase options. Carleton contends that the district court and the superior court have concurrent jurisdiction and that the district court action had priority because it was filed first. Although some of the issues before the superior court would have arisen in the district court case, Woodstock would not have been able to litigate in the district court the issues requiring specific performance. This is not a case where the courts have concurrent jurisdiction. Thus, the superior court injunction properly enjoined Carleton from jeopardizing Woodstock’s rights in the property. See 42 Am. Jur. 2d Injunctions § 201 (1969).

Other Sections in This Document (33)

Full Text