Porter v. Bean
Superior Court of New Hampshire
THIS was a writ of entry by the demandants, as heirs of Emerson Porter, who was alleged to have been seized of the premises within the last twenty years.
Read the full summary
THIS was a writ of entry by the demandants, as heirs of Emerson Porter, who was alleged to have been seized of the premises within the last twenty years. The tenant pleaded, that he had never disseized the said Emerson Porter; and at the trial here, September term, 1818, the demandant offered in evidence a judgment against the tenant,which was in favour of Emerson Porter, and which was recovered at the court of common pleas in this countv, January term, 1816. On this an execution had issued, by which the demanded premises appear to have been duly extended unless the proceedings were void,…
1Opinion of the Court · WoodburyWoodbury, J.
We have already decided that the creditor himself may swear appraisers;* a fortiori, then, his attorney can do it. *364But the other objection is of a different nature : and because the attorney is competent to perform a ministerial act it does not follow that he is a proper person to dicharge judicial duties, These last should be performed by persons unimpeach-ed and unimpeachable. Jurors, for instance, are required to be omni exceptions majores: and it is an express cause for a challenge propter affectum, that the person challenged has been counsel for one of the parties(1).
It is doubtful…
Also in this document: Opinion of the Court · Woodbury.
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Pearce v. AtwoodMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1816
- Inhabitants of Boston v. TilestonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1814
- Tweedy v. PicketSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1803
3Cited by1 opinion
- Clement v. BrooksSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1842