Nihan v. Knight
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
From Grafton Circuit Court. This is a motion to bring forward the action to save an attachment. The action was entered at the March term, 1874, and continued to September term, 1874, when it was entered on the clerk’s docket “ default, judgment; ” but no judgment was «ver entered up, and no execution was issued. There was an attachment of personal property on the writ, and a receipt was given for the same.
Read the full summary
From Grafton Circuit Court. This is a motion to bring forward the action to save an attachment. The action was entered at the March term, 1874, and continued to September term, 1874, when it was entered on the clerk’s docket “ default, judgment; ” but no judgment was «ver entered up, and no execution was issued. There was an attachment of personal property on the writ, and a receipt was given for the same. The receiptor was of doubtful responsibility, and the plaintiff, after the receipt was given and before the property had been removed, objected to him; but the officer informed him, in…
1Concurrence
The defendant was defaulted at the September term, 1874, and judgment was rendered against him in favor of the plaintiff. This the docket shows; and it makes no difference that the judgment was not formerly entered up on the records. The plaintiff could have taken out his execution without any further order or decree of the court, and by his neglect to do so, and levy the same, his attachment was dissolved in thirty days from the end of the term. It cannot be revived, at least against the rights of third parties, and in the absence of any fraud. The case falls short of Hackett v. Pickering, 5…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hackett v. PickeringSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1829
- Rowe v. PageSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1874