Sissons v. Bicknell
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, for $100, money had and received. The defendant pleaded the statute of limitations. To this the plaintiffs replied, that, at the time when the cause of action accrued, and ever afterwards, the defendant resided in Vermont, and did not leave property in litis state that could be attached. To this the defendant rejoined, that he left property within the stale, which might have been attached, and upon this issue was joined.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, for $100, money had and received. The defendant pleaded the statute of limitations. To this the plaintiffs replied, that, at the time when the cause of action accrued, and ever afterwards, the defendant resided in Vermont, and did not leave property in litis state that could be attached. To this the defendant rejoined, that he left property within the stale, which might have been attached, and upon this issue was joined. The cause was submitted to the decision of the court upon the following facts. In the year 1821, the defendant received $100 for the use of the plaintiffs. He…
1Opinion of the Court
Richardson, C. J,
delivered the opinion of the court.
*558The statute of limitations provides, that actions on the case should be barred unless commenced within six years next after the cause of action. But the third section declares, that if, at the time the cause of action accrued, or afterwards, the defendant resided without the limits of the state, and did not leave property or estate therein, that could by the common and ordinary process of law be attached, the plaintiff shall be at liberty to commence his action within six years after the cause of action, exclusive of the time during winch…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Southerin v. MendumSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1831
- Dwight v. ClarkMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1811
3Cited by2 opinions
- Dow v. SaywardSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1843
- Dow v. SaywardSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1841