Legal Opinion

Therrien v. Scammon

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided January 1, 1935Published

1Opinion of the Court

Page, J.(1) The return non est inventus dated December 20, 1926, showing on its face that the residence of Sargent was unknown to the officer, was evidence on which the action was properly entered and continued for notice. The service made upon Sargent in accordance with the subsequent order was authorized by law, and the plea in abatement must be overruled. Burney v. Hodgdon, 66 N. H. 338; Martin v. Wiggin, 67 N. H. 196; National Bank of Lebanon v. Company, 70 N. H. 227.(2) Since this is not an action to recover for personal injuries, the limitation upon the issuance of a writ of scire…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Martin v. WigginSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1892
  2. Shea v. StarrSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1913
  3. Burney v. HodgdonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1890
  4. National Bank v. Mascoma Flannel Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1899

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API