Martin v. Wiggin
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Motion, by a subsequent mortgagee of tbe property attached, having leave to appear, to dismiss the actions for want of service. Both defendants resided in this county. The officer who made the attachments knew that one of them resided here and the other elsewhere in the state, and he occasionally saw the latter in this county. He made no service upon either, nor any return that he was not found.
Read the full summary
Motion, by a subsequent mortgagee of tbe property attached, having leave to appear, to dismiss the actions for want of service. Both defendants resided in this county. The officer who made the attachments knew that one of them resided here and the other elsewhere in the state, and he occasionally saw the latter in this county. He made no service upon either, nor any return that he was not found. At the term when the actions were entered, they were continued for notice to the defendants by publication, and such notice has been given.
1Opinion of the CourtChase, J.
The writs should have been served upon the defendants by seasonably delivering to each, or leaving at his abode, summonses in the form prescribed, with the name and office of the officer indorsed by him thereon (G. L., c. 223, s. 3), or by giving to each duly attested copies of the writs (Laws 1883, c. 22, s. 1). No other mode of service is provided for such eases. Section 9, c. 223, Gen. Laws, does not apply, because the defendants were inhabitants of the state, and apparently there was no difficulty in serving the writs upon them according to the mode prescribed for service upon such…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Lacoss v. LebanonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1917
- Brown v. EllsworthSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1903
- Carpenter v. Fisher A.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1896
- National Bank v. Mascoma Flannel Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1899
- Rainford v. NewportSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1928
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.