Gove v. Lawrence
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Debt upon a bond. Plea, non est factum ; and there was a denial of the signature, in the manner required by the forty-third rule of court. The declaration alleged that the defendant at, &c., on, &c., “ by his writing obligatory of that date, sealed with his seal, and here in court to be produced, bound and acknowledged himself indebted to the, plaintiff in the sum of one thousand dollars, to be paid to the plaintiff on demand.” The action was referred under a rule of court.
Read the full summary
Debt upon a bond. Plea, non est factum ; and there was a denial of the signature, in the manner required by the forty-third rule of court. The declaration alleged that the defendant at, &c., on, &c., “ by his writing obligatory of that date, sealed with his seal, and here in court to be produced, bound and acknowledged himself indebted to the, plaintiff in the sum of one thousand dollars, to be paid to the plaintiff on demand.” The action was referred under a rule of court. The parties appeared before the referees, and the hearing was adjourned to the 15th day of January, 1852. At the…
1Opinion of the CourtWoods, J.
The defendant is sued alone, as upon his sole obligation. Such is the form and effect of the declaration. But the purpose of the action is to recover a sum of money claimed to be due upon the joint obligation of the defendant and two others,, It is, then, the case of a nonjoinder of defendants whom it was proper to join in the action. The plea filed is non est factum, and the question in issue upon the plea was, whether the obligation declared on was the act or deed of the defendant.
The motion of the plaintiff was made, and attempted to be sustained, upon the ground that the action cannot be…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Nealley v. MoultonSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1842