Bell v. Somerby
Superior Court of New Hampshire
The plaintiff in this case sued out a writ, by which the sheriff was commanded to attach the goods or estate of the principal, and summon the trustee. The sheriff, in his return upon the writ, had stated that he had served it upon the principal by attaching certain property and giving him a summons.
Read the full summary
The plaintiff in this case sued out a writ, by which the sheriff was commanded to attach the goods or estate of the principal, and summon the trustee. The sheriff, in his return upon the writ, had stated that he had served it upon the principal by attaching certain property and giving him a summons. The principal in his plea prayed judgment of the writ, because it had been served upon him by leaving a summons, whereas by law it ought to have been served by leaving witb him a copy of the writ itself. To this plea the plaintiff demurred, and the principal joined in demurrer.
1Opinion of the CourtRichardson, C. J.
By the statute of February 12, 1791, it was provided, that the process to be used in cases of foreign attachment should be a summons, the form of which was enacted. And it was further provided, that the writ should be served both upon the principal and upon the trustee, in the same way and manner as original summonses in other cases ought to be served.
The statute of February 9, 1791, provided that all writs of summons should be served by reading the same to the defendant, or by leaving an attested copy thereof, with a *65copy of the service, at his last and usual place of abode.
The statute of…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Averill v. MathesSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1875