Ingraham v. Olcock
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Foreign Attachment. On the return of the writ, Huntington, one of the trustees, pleaded in abatement, that, at the time of the purchase of the writ, he was and ever since has been, sheriff of the county of Cheshire, and that Phineas Stewart, the deputy sheriff Avho served and returned the writ, was, at the time of the service and return, a deputy appointed by him, and as such deputy made the service and return. The plaintiff objected to the reception of the plea.
1Opinion of the CourtWoods, J.
The question, whether the plea filed in this case is receivable, or the objection to its reception is to prevail, must depend upon the proper determination of the question, whether it can legally have the effect, in the manner in which it is pleaded, to abate the writ in whole or in part. For if it may properly have that effect, either as to Huntington, who filed it, or as to any other party to the action, it is properly receivable for that purpose.
In order to determine the question of the effect of the plea, and of the propriety of its reception as a plea in the case, it will be necessary,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Inhabitants of Brewer v. Inhabitants of New GloucesterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1817
3Cited by4 opinions
- Clark v. WilsonSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1844
- Farnsworth v. PageSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1845
- Puffer v. GravesSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1853
- Vaughan v. MorrisonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1875