Knowles v. Rowell
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit upon a promissory note. The defendant craved oyer of the writ, and of the officer’s return thereon, and enrolled them. By the return it appeared that the writ was served by an attachment of property, and the delivery of a summons to the defendant.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit upon a promissory note. The defendant craved oyer of the writ, and of the officer’s return thereon, and enrolled them. By the return it appeared that the writ was served by an attachment of property, and the delivery of a summons to the defendant. The plea then prayed that the summons, which was left with him, might be enrolled, after which it proceeded as follows — “ All which being done, read, and heard, the said Sampson Rowell prays judg-ement of the writ aforesaid, and that the .same may abate, because he says that the summons aforesaid, left with him by the officer who served…
1Opinion of the CourtParker, J.
So far as the rules respecting pleas in abatement are founded in any reason, though the reason be merely for the preservation of clearness and distinctness, we are ready to follow them, and hold the party to a strict adherence in point of form.
A plea in abatement which concludes badly cannot be good, Com. Dig., Abatement, I, 12. It is well settled, that, as a matter of form, the party should be held to pray for the correct judgment. Thus if he pleads to the jurisdiction, he shall conclude, judicium si curia vult cognoscere, or si responderi debet. If to the person, judgment whether he shall…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Lyman v. DodgeSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1842
- Pitman v. PerkinsSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1853
- Wendell v. MoultonSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1844