Miner v. Smith
Superior Court of New Hampshire
The cause was submitted to the decision of the court upon the following facts. Jonathan Eaton, of Hanover, sued out a writ against A. Miner, the plaintiff in this case, upon the back of which, near the bottom, W. Smith, the defendant, put an endorsement os follows ; — “ Jonathan Eaton, by his attorney, W. Smith.” At November term of the superior court in this county, 1831, Miner recovered judgment in that suit against Eaton, for $¡39 27 costs of suit.
Read the full summary
The cause was submitted to the decision of the court upon the following facts. Jonathan Eaton, of Hanover, sued out a writ against A. Miner, the plaintiff in this case, upon the back of which, near the bottom, W. Smith, the defendant, put an endorsement os follows ; — “ Jonathan Eaton, by his attorney, W. Smith.” At November term of the superior court in this county, 1831, Miner recovered judgment in that suit against Eaton, for $¡39 27 costs of suit. Execution was duly issued, on the judgment, and returned at May term, 1832, with a return of non cst inven-tus, and in no part satisfied. This…
1Opinion of the CourtRichardson, C. J.
The circumstance, that Eaton removed from the state after the commencement of his action, and before judgment was rendered against him, is wholly immaterial in this case. A plaintiff, who is an inhabitant of ih:s state *220when the suit is commenced, is a competent endorser of his own writ.
We have always held, in this state, that an attorney, having authority to commence an action in the name of any individual, is authorized to place the name of that individual upon the writ as endorser. And when the endorsement is made, in the mode adopted in this case, it is always considered as the endorsement…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Pettingill v. McGregorSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1841