Moore v. Kidder
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Writ op entry, to recover a tract of land in East Kingston. Plea, nul disseizin. The plaintiff offered in evidence a deed from Ezra P. Downing to her, dated October 22, 1872, and recorded November 9, 1872; also, a deed from Harry Downing to Ezra P. Downing, dated March 9, 1871, and recorded November 9, 1872; also, a deed from Samuel L. Blaisdell to Harry Downing, dated October 19,1869, and recorded November 9,1872, — all conveying the demanded premises, of which it was…
Read the full summary
Writ op entry, to recover a tract of land in East Kingston. Plea, nul disseizin. The plaintiff offered in evidence a deed from Ezra P. Downing to her, dated October 22, 1872, and recorded November 9, 1872; also, a deed from Harry Downing to Ezra P. Downing, dated March 9, 1871, and recorded November 9, 1872; also, a deed from Samuel L. Blaisdell to Harry Downing, dated October 19,1869, and recorded November 9,1872, — all conveying the demanded premises, of which it was admitted that said Blaisdell was in possession at the time of his conveyance. The defendants offered in evidence a levy made…
1Dissent
In this case, the return of the officer showed an attachment of all the real estate of Harry Downing in the town of East Kingston, and did not specifically refer to the premises in controversy. So far as I know, this question has not before being raised in this state. It is said, and I suppose truly, that the practice has been very general, and has become inveterate. There is, I apprehend, a material difference between an attachment of specific property by a description more or less general, and an attachment of real estate which does not attempt to specify anything the case of Howard v.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Howard v. DanielsSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1819
- Bryant v. OsgoodSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1872