Bliss v. Connecticut & Pas. Rivers Railroad
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an action on the case. The defendants filed in court the following motion to dismiss. “ And now the defendants come “ and move said cause to be dismissed, because said writ purports to “ have been served by William Barker an indifferent person, and “ by no other person, or officer, and it does not appear that said “ Barker was in anywise authorized to serve said writ, and de- “ fendants have never accepted service of the same.
Read the full summary
This was an action on the case. The defendants filed in court the following motion to dismiss. “ And now the defendants come “ and move said cause to be dismissed, because said writ purports to “ have been served by William Barker an indifferent person, and “ by no other person, or officer, and it does not appear that said “ Barker was in anywise authorized to serve said writ, and de- “ fendants have never accepted service of the same. Therefore, “ they p'ray said suit and said writ be dismissed, and for their “ costs.”* This motion was filed within the rule of the county court, for filing…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
In this case, the writ was served by an indifferent person,, and no authority whatever appears for such service. The defendants moved to dismiss the action for want of service, therein alledging that the person serving the same, “ does not appear to have had any authority to serve, the same” and that the writ purports to have been served by such indifferent person, and that defendants have not accepted service.
If the defects complained of, were in the form of the authority, or in the service, it should clearly be pleaded in abatement, or it would be disregarded, but where the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Hayden v. Caledonia National BankSupreme Court of Vermont · 1942
- Washburn v. HammondSupreme Court of Vermont · 1853
- Howard v. WalkerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1866
- Johnson v. Bennington & North Adams Street Railway Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1914