Judge of Probate v. Merrill
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Debt upon bond. The defendants were summoned to answer to “ the judge of probate for the county of Grafton,” and the declaration alleged, that, by the writing obligatory they became bound to the judge of probate, &e. The name of Thomas Eastman, of Enfield, was endorsed upon the writ, as the person at whose request the suit was instituted. The declaration contained no profert.
Read the full summary
Debt upon bond. The defendants were summoned to answer to “ the judge of probate for the county of Grafton,” and the declaration alleged, that, by the writing obligatory they became bound to the judge of probate, &e. The name of Thomas Eastman, of Enfield, was endorsed upon the writ, as the person at whose request the suit was instituted. The declaration contained no profert. The defendant demurred to the declaration and assigned the omission of a profert of the bond for cause of demurrer. The plaintiff joined in demurrer. contended, that it did not appear that the bond declared on was a…
1Opinion of the Court
*259The judgment of the court was pronounced bv
Pa rT KER5 «/•
It is objected by the defendant that it does not appear that the bond in question is a probate bond, and that the case is therefore to be decided on the principles applicable to bonds in general, and if there is not matter before us from which we may understand that the bond in suit is a bond to the judge of probate, in his official capacity, the objection must prevail, and the declaration be held bad for the want of a proferí of the bond, or an excuse for the omission.
It is true that the declaration sets forth no condition by which we…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Rand v. RandSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1828
3Cited by2 opinions
- Silver v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of MarylandNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1935
- Clark v. TarbellSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1876