
    Hickey v. Dole & a.
    
    The sum to be contributed by each of several defendants in satisfaction of a decree recovered by the plaintiff may be determined in the suit in which the decree was rendered.
    
      In Equity. After a decree rendered in favor of the plaintiff for a conveyance of realty and the recovery of a sum of money (ante, p. 336), a question arose between the defendants as to the portion of that sum which each of them should contribute.
    
      Drew & Jordan, for the plaintiff.
    
      E. A. & C. B. Hibbard and W. & H. Heywood, for Dole and Stuart.
    
      Drummond & Drummond (of Maine), for Soule's administrator and heirs.
   Doe, C. J.

A defendant may have affirmative relief against the plaintiff. Clark v. Clark, 62 N. H. 267, 268, 272; Cox v. Leviston, 63 N. H. 283, 287. Both parties are entitled to just and convenient procedure. Pearson v. Railroad, 63 N. H. 534; Boody v. Watson, 64 N. H. 162, 171-174, 178, 179. The defendants’ situation is such that justice and convenience require in this suit an adjustment of their conflicting claims in regard to contribution. It is not suggested that the plaintiff has any interest in their controversy. if they ask delay in the enforcement of his decree, the reasonableness of delay will be considered at the trial term, where an additional decree will be made when the question of contribution is tried.

All concurred.  