Goodall v. Durgin
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, upon a promissory note, dated January 16, A. D. 1836, for one hundred and five dollars, in one year from date now past, with interest; second count for money had and received. Plea in abatement enrolling the writ, &c. The description of the note as set forth in the enrollment of the summons, was “ dated the 16th day of January, A. D. 1836, for § 105.00, payable to said plaintiff, or order, in one year now past, with interest.”
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, upon a promissory note, dated January 16, A. D. 1836, for one hundred and five dollars, in one year from date now past, with interest; second count for money had and received. Plea in abatement enrolling the writ, &c. The description of the note as set forth in the enrollment of the summons, was “ dated the 16th day of January, A. D. 1836, for § 105.00, payable to said plaintiff, or order, in one year now past, with interest.” The cause of abatement alleged was, "that in and by the declaration in the writ aforesaid, the note declared on is described as and for one hundred and five…
1Opinion of the Court
Parker, G. J.
We have had some hesitation respecting this case, but upon consideration, are of opinion that the demurrer is well taken. By our practice, the party pleading *578in abatement for a variance between the writ and summons, is bound to enrol them, that it may appear, upon inspection, whether the alleged variance does exist. He is, of course, bound to an enrolment which is substantially correct. 4 N. H. Rep. 76, Pike vs. Baglay; 6 N. H. Rep. 434, Clark vs. Brown; and the defendant in this case professes to enrol the summons by setting out a copy of it. If there is an omission of a…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Clark v. BrownSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1833
- Pike v. BagleySuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1827
3Cited by1 opinion
- Colby v. DowSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1847