Tandy v. Rowell
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Writ op error, to reverse a judgment recovered by the defendants in error against the plaintiff in error, at the October term, 1869, of the supreme judicial court for this comity.
Read the full summary
Writ op error, to reverse a judgment recovered by the defendants in error against the plaintiff in error, at the October term, 1869, of the supreme judicial court for this comity. The error assigned is one of fact, — that at the time the judgment was rendered the plaintiff in error was a minor, under the age of twenty-one years; that the judgment was rendered upon his default, he not appearing to answer; that he had no guardian, and that no guardian ad litem was appointed for him by the court. The defendants in error moved “ to quash the scire facias ” for the following reasons: 1. Because…
1Opinion of the CourtIsaac W. Smith, J.
A defect in the summons which accompanies the ordinary writ of attachment, or a defect in the service of the same, is reached by plea in abatement, or by motion to quash the writ, if seasonably made. We will consider the motion “ to quash the writ of seire facias,” as if it were a motion to dismiss the writ of error for defects in the scire facias.
1. The first reason is frivolous as well as groundless. It is true that where a writ of error is brought to reverse a judgment, a scire facias on. that judgment wall not lie while the writ is pending, and the pendency of the writ of error -is a good…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Smith v. RiceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1814
- Inhabitants of Pembroke v. Inhabitants of AbingtonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1806
- Bissell v. SpencerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1831
- Van Alstine v. BrowerNew York Supreme Court · 1823
3Cited by1 opinion
- Re RuschNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1932