Peaslee v. Wadleigh
Superior Court of New Hampshire
This was an action of trespass. The first count was for taking and carrying away on the 11th June, 1825, a quantity of pine boards. The second count was for taking and carrying away, on the same day, a quantity of pine boards lying in a certain close in Kingston, called the mill-yard, which was particularly described in the declaration.
Read the full summary
This was an action of trespass. The first count was for taking and carrying away on the 11th June, 1825, a quantity of pine boards. The second count was for taking and carrying away, on the same day, a quantity of pine boards lying in a certain close in Kingston, called the mill-yard, which was particularly described in the declaration. The defendants pleaded in bar, that the said D. Wad-leigh, and one John Wadleigh, were at the time when &c. lawfully possessed, as tenants in common, of a certain close in Kingston, which they particularly described by metes and bounds, and because the said…
1Opinion of the CourtRxchaedson, C. J.
In trespass, de bonis asportatis, it is a good plea that the defendant, long before, and at the time, was lawfully possessed of a close, and that the goods were wrongfully upon the close incumbering it. 2 Chitty’s Pl. 547, and 545; 1 East, 216 ; 1 Chitty’s Pl. 496; Com. Dig. Pleader, 3 M 26, and C 41.
But in this Case, an objection is taken to the plea. The action is in both counts simply trespass de bonis asportatis. In the second count the goods are alleged, very unnecessarily, to have been taken in a close, which is particularly described. But the injury is not local; and the place laid in…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Smith v. Nashua & Lowell RailroadSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1853