Dow v. Sayward
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, on a note for $111-34, dated June 7th, 1826, made by the defendant, and drawn payable to the plaintiff’s intestate. The writ was dated on the 22d of July, 1830, Plea, the general issue and statute of limitations. The signature of the note was duly proved. It appeared in evidence that the intestate, Jabez Dow, died on the 9th day of January, 1839, and that he resided at Dover.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, on a note for $111-34, dated June 7th, 1826, made by the defendant, and drawn payable to the plaintiff’s intestate. The writ was dated on the 22d of July, 1830, Plea, the general issue and statute of limitations. The signature of the note was duly proved. It appeared in evidence that the intestate, Jabez Dow, died on the 9th day of January, 1839, and that he resided at Dover. The defendant had never been an inhabitant of this state, but resided at Alfred, in the state of Maine. To rebut the effect of his absence from the state, which would deprive him of any right to avail himself…
1Opinion of the CourtUpham, J.
The section of the act under which the question before us arises, has not received a judicial construction in this state, except in this particular — that the statute of limitations constitutes no bar to the maintenance *275of an action, where the defendant has resided without the state, unless there has been property of the defendant within the state during the full term of six years, which might have been attached “ by the common and ordinary process of law.” 6 N. H. Rep. 557, Sissons vs. Bicknell.
There has been no decision by our courts as to what constitutes an attachment “ by the common and…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Morrison v. BlodgettSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1836
- Gibson v. StevensSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1834
- Page v. CarpenterSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1839
- Sissons v. BicknellSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1834
- Wetmore v. BakerNew York Supreme Court · 1812