Mattocks v. Bishop
Superior Court of New Hampshire
This was an action of assumpsit. It had been submitted to an auditor to examine the claims of the plaintiff, and report what sum was due. At the hearing, before the auditor, it was discovered that the plaintiff’s writ had been mislaid, and could not be found. The defendant objected to a hearing without the writ, hut the auditor proceeded, heard the parties, and reported that a certain sum was due, to the plaintiff. And now the plaintiff moved for leave to file a new writ.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit. It had been submitted to an auditor to examine the claims of the plaintiff, and report what sum was due. At the hearing, before the auditor, it was discovered that the plaintiff’s writ had been mislaid, and could not be found. The defendant objected to a hearing without the writ, hut the auditor proceeded, heard the parties, and reported that a certain sum was due, to the plaintiff. And now the plaintiff moved for leave to file a new writ. This was opposed by the defendant, and it appeared that the writ had never been filed with the clerk of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
By the court.
It was very long since the practice among the members of the bar in this state, instead of filing their writs with the clerk when the actions were entered, *440to retain them in their own possession, until some disposition of the actions rendered it necessary that the writs should be on file with the clerk. The consequence of this was, that the writs were sometimes lost or mislaid, and when such accidents occurred, the plaintiff’s counsel usually applied to the court for leave to file a new writ, which it is -believed was generally granted.
This practice had its origin in the lower…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Whitcher v. WhitcherSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1839