Lombard v. Maguire-Penniman Co.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Trustee Process. This is the same case reported ante, 110, wherein it was held that the trustee was chargeable for the amount of the indemnity. The trustee now excepts to the ruling of the superior court, that legal notice was given to the principal defendant, a non-resident, who did not appear. The facts are stated in the opinion.
Read the full summary
Trustee Process. This is the same case reported ante, 110, wherein it was held that the trustee was chargeable for the amount of the indemnity. The trustee now excepts to the ruling of the superior court, that legal notice was given to the principal defendant, a non-resident, who did not appear. The facts are stated in the opinion. The further question is transferred, without a ruling, whether interest should be added to the amount of the indemnity from the date of the judgment in the original action. No default or judgment has been entered. Both questions were transferred by Pike, C. J. from…
1Opinion of the CourtWalker, J.
Notice to the principal defendant of the pendency of the action was essential. King v. Holmes, 27 N. H. 266. The plaintiff attempted to give it in accordance with P. S., c. 219, s. 5, which provides that: “If the defendant is not an inhabitant of the state, and the writ is not served on him in person within the state, but his goods or estate are attached, an attested copy of the writ and of the return of the attachment may be given to him, or left at his abode outside the state, or may be left with the agent authorized to appear for him, or with his tenant on or near the land attached." After…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Patterson v. AdanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1912
3Cited by3 opinions
- Nault v. N & L Development Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 2001
- In re Estate of Jack Michael BergquistSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 2014
- Stavrelis v. ZachariasSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1919