Wheeler & Wilson M'f'g Co. v. Whitcomb
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
ReplbVin, for a sewing-machine. The defendant is a resident of Concord, and the machine in question was taken from her on this writ in that county. The defendant moved to dismiss for want of jurisdiction, and the motion was granted. The court then, against the plaintiffs’ objection, assessed the defendant’s damages at thirty-five dollars.
Read the full summary
ReplbVin, for a sewing-machine. The defendant is a resident of Concord, and the machine in question was taken from her on this writ in that county. The defendant moved to dismiss for want of jurisdiction, and the motion was granted. The court then, against the plaintiffs’ objection, assessed the defendant’s damages at thirty-five dollars. The plaintiffs objected that the action having been dismissed for want of jurisdiction, the court had no power to assess the damages ; but the court overruled the objection, and ordered judgment for the defendant for thirty-five dollars and costs, to which…
1Opinion of the CourtBlodgett, J.
When the action was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, the power of the court to determine either the title or the value of the property in controversy terminated, and the subsequent acts of assessing the damages and ordering judgment therefor were consequently unauthorized and void. The plaintiffs’ ■exceptions must therefore be sustained, but in order to prevent unnecessary litigation, and in furtherance of the more speedy administration of justice, the case is ordered to be sent to Merri mack county for trial. See Bartlett v. Lee, 60 N. H. 168. The defendant will take costs to the time of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bartlett v. LeeSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1880
3Cited by2 opinions
- Tucker v. LakeSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1892
- Whitcher v. Union Grange Fair Ass'nSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1914