Town of Stoddard v. Cockran
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Debt upon a bond, in the sum of ⅜⅜10,000, which was described in the declaration as payable to the town “ as said town should, by legal vote, direct.” The defendants craved oyer of the writ, and of the sheriff’s return, by which it appeared that he attached property of the defendants and left a summons, with cash, for his appearance.
Read the full summary
Debt upon a bond, in the sum of ⅜⅜10,000, which was described in the declaration as payable to the town “ as said town should, by legal vote, direct.” The defendants craved oyer of the writ, and of the sheriff’s return, by which it appeared that he attached property of the defendants and left a summons, with cash, for his appearance. They then enrolled the summonses, in which they were commanded to appear and answer to the plaintiffs “ in a plea of debt, for not paying them the amount of your writing of October 28, A. D. 1830, obligatory, sealed with your seal, for the sum of ten thousand…
1Opinion of the Court
By the court. *
The statute declares that summonses, il in all cases, shall briefly give the same information to the defendant which the declaration gives more at large, and shall contain the substance thereof.” In this case there is a material variance between the bond described in the declaration and the bond described in the summons. The bond, mentioned in the declaration, is not a bond payable on demand. It was not payable at all until the town, by vote, directed how it should be paid. The summons then did not give briefly the same information to the defendant which the writ gave moré at…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Moore v. ChesleySuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1845
- Pitman v. PerkinsSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1853
- Wendell v. MoultonSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1844