Burney v. Hodgdon
| Decision Date | 25 July 1890 |
| Parties | BURNEY v. HODGDON. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Case reserved from Coos county.
Writ of attachment by John Burney against Daniel W. Hodgdon. Question of the legality of notice by publication was reserved. Case discharged.
In the writ, which is dated May 3, 1889, the defendant is described as "of Milan, in the county and state aforesaid." May C, 1889, an officer attached real estate, and made return, concerning the defendant, "not to be found in my precinct." The action was entered at the October term, 1889, and continued for notice, and notice was given by publication. At the April term, 1890, the defendant appeared specially, and pleaded in abatement that on the day of the date of the writ, and all the time between that day and the return day, he was an inhabitant of this state, and during all that time was within this state, and had his usual place of abode in Milan, in said county, but no service of the writ was ever made upon him, either by delivering to him or leaving at his usual place of abode a copy thereof, or by reading the same to him, or in any other manner prescribed by law. The question of the legality of notice by publication was reserved.
Twitchell & Goss and J. F. Libby, for plaintiff, cited Thompson v. Carroll, 36 N. H. 21, and Buswell v. Babbitt, 65 N. H. 168, 169, 18 Atl. 748.
Ladd & Fletcher, for defendant.
The construction of the statutes, settled by general practice, is that either of several forms of return, including the one made in this case, is evidence on which an action may be entered and continued for notice. The notice given by publication was legal. A demurrer to the plea in abatement should be sustained. Case discharged.
SMITH, J., did not sit The others concurred.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clark v. Bradstreet
...the sheriff's proceeding or defeating any right acquired under them. Lewis v. Blair, 1 N.H. 68; Brown v. Davis, 9 N.H. 76; Burney v. Hodgdon, 66 N.H. 338, 29 A. 493; Therrien v. Scammon, 'The object of the rule was to protect the proceedings of the sheriff and the reason of it was the extre......
-
Sampson v. Conlon
...by the court. Clark v. Bradstreet, 99 N.H. 55, 57, 104 A.2d 739; Therrien v. Scammon, 87 N.H. 214, 215, 176 A. 116; Burney v. Hodgdon, 66 N.H. 338, 339, 29 A. 493. The order of notice directed the plaintiff to notify the defendant of the pendency of the action by causing certified copies of......
-
Lombard v. Maguire Penniman Co.
...of the suit, given according to the order, shall be sufficient service." In this way the supposed defect may be cured. Burney v. Hodgdon, 66 N. H. 338, 29 Atl. 493; Martin v. Wiggin, 67 N. H. 196, 29 Atl. 450. If, as is claimed by the trustee, service should have been made under this statut......
-
Therrien v. Scammon
...upon Sargent in accordance with the subsequent order was authorized by law, and the plea in abatement must be overruled. Burney v. Hodgdon, 66 N. H. 338, 29 A. 493; Martin v. Wiggin, 67 N. H. 196, 29 A. 450; National Bank of Lebanon v. Mascoma Flannel Company, 70 N. H. 227, 46 A. 2. Since t......