Sceva v. True
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
For the purpose of raising questions of law, and no other, the parties agreed that the facts are as stated in the following motions to dismiss, and the questions were reserved for the consideration of the whole court.
Read the full summary
For the purpose of raising questions of law, and no other, the parties agreed that the facts are as stated in the following motions to dismiss, and the questions were reserved for the consideration of the whole court. The defendant, by her guardian ad litem, moves to quash the writ in this suit, and to dismiss said suit, (1) because, at the time of the attachment of the defendant’s real estate in the town of Andover in said suit — as appears by the officer’s return upon said writ— and at the time of the service of said writ, and for more than forty years prior thereto, she was, and had been,…
1Opinion of the CourtLadd, J.
It is obvious, we think, that one question which has been argued .by counsel at considerable length, namely, whether legal service of a writ can be made upon an insane person or idiot, is not be-ore the court, on this motion to dismiss, in such way that any pracical results would be gained by deciding it. The agreement of the arties is not that the suit shall be dismissed in case the court are of opinion that the service was insufficient, but only that the facts may be taken to be as stated for no other purpose but to present the question to the court; and, if the decision should be adverse…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Barmat v. John and Jane Doe Partners ADArizona Supreme Court · 1987
- Conway v. JobinSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1975
- In Re Houghton EstateSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1974
- Bickford v. DaneSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1876
- Booker v. Sears Roebuck & Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1989
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.