Pike v. Pike
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, on review. The original action was founded on two promissory notes of the said Polly, and an account filed by leave of court for work and labor done and performed by said Samuel. On the entry of the action at the February term, 1850, of the common pleas, Polly Pike was defaulted; and Ovid Chase, of Claremont, was permitted by the court to defend the suit, in the name of Polly, on his filing bonds for costs.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, on review. The original action was founded on two promissory notes of the said Polly, and an account filed by leave of court for work and labor done and performed by said Samuel. On the entry of the action at the February term, 1850, of the common pleas, Polly Pike was defaulted; and Ovid Chase, of Claremont, was permitted by the court to defend the suit, in the name of Polly, on his filing bonds for costs. This permission was granted upon its being shown to the court by Chase that certain lands were attached on the writ in the suit, which lands had been conveyed, subject to a…
1Opinion of the CourtEastman, J.
The authorities cited by the counsel for Chase fully establish the rule that persons having equitable rights, which can be enforced in courts of law only in the names of parties in whom the legal title is vested, may prosecute and defend those rights in the names of the persons in whom the legal title exists. It is of course to be understood that in such cases a full indemnity for costs must be furnished if required.
And persons in whom the legal' title exists cannot control the suits thus necessarily brought in their names; nor will their admissions, subsequent to the time that they ceased to…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Blaisdell v. LaddSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1843
- Smith v. SmithSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1841
- Buckman v. BuckmanSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1828
- Carlisle v. RichSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1835
- Kimball v. FennerSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1841
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Clipper Affiliates, Inc. v. ChecovichSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1994
- In re Keene SentinelSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1992
- Whittier v. Hartford Fire Ins.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1875