Young v. Ross
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Foreign Attachment. It was agreed by the parties that at the time of the service of the writ upon the trustee, the principal defendants resided out of the State, and no service was made on them, nor did they appear, nor were they notified till after said James Foss had disclosed, when one of the principal defendants appeared.
Read the full summary
Foreign Attachment. It was agreed by the parties that at the time of the service of the writ upon the trustee, the principal defendants resided out of the State, and no service was made on them, nor did they appear, nor were they notified till after said James Foss had disclosed, when one of the principal defendants appeared. That James Foss, at the time of the service of the writ on him, lived in Acton, in the State of Maine, where he had long before and has ever since lived. At the time of the service of said writ on him, he happened in this State on business, and for a temporary and…
1Opinion of the CourtEastman, J.
In King v. Holmes & Tr. 7 Foster’s Rep. 226, it was held that an action might be commenced against a non-resident principal defendant, by the attachment of his property in the hands of the trustee residing in this State, by virtue of the trustee process, and afterwards notifying the defendant of the pendency of the suit, by publication in some newspaper, in pursuance of an order of court. We were of opinion that by such a service the court would obtain jurisdiction of the case, so as to render judgment against the parties, and hold the property in the hands of the trustee. It was an…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Libbey v. Hodgdon, Principal, & Portland Stage Co.Superior Court of New Hampshire · 1838
- Jones v. WinchesterSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1834
3Cited by1 opinion
- Corning v. RecordsSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1898