Pitman v. Perkins
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit. The declaration contained a count for money had and received. The defendant was summoned to answer to the plaintiff for not paying him a certain sum for money paid and laid out. The defendant pleaded in .abatement, because the summons did not contain the substance of the plaintiff’s writ, in not requiring him to answer to the plaintiff for not paying him for money had and received by the defendant.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit. The declaration contained a count for money had and received. The defendant was summoned to answer to the plaintiff for not paying him a certain sum for money paid and laid out. The defendant pleaded in .abatement, because the summons did not contain the substance of the plaintiff’s writ, in not requiring him to answer to the plaintiff for not paying him for money had and received by the defendant. To this plea the plaintiff demurred, for the cause, among others, that the defendant craved oyer of the writ, declaration and return, in one and the same paragraph. Any defect in a plea…
1Opinion of the CourtGilchrist, C. J.
The first question to be considered is, whether there is any defect in the plea.' The exception taken by the demurrer is, that the plea craves oyer of the writ, declaration and return, in one paragraph. .
In the case of Nelson v. Swett, 4 N. H. Rep. 256, it is stated that the defendant having craved oyer of the writ and declaration, prayed, &c. In Tucker v. Perley, 5 N. H. Rep. 345, the defendant “ craved oyer of the writ and return,” and also in Stoddard v. Cochran, 6 N. H. Rep. 160, and in Knowles v. Rowell, 8 N. H. Rep. 542. In the present case the defendant craves oyer of the “ writ and…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Nelson v. SwettSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1827
- Knowles v. RowellSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1837
- Town of Stoddard v. CockranSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1833
- Tucker v. PerleySuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1831