Daniels v. Ellison
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Tkespass quart clausum. fregit. The defendant pleaded, that tiie locus in quo was his soil and freehold, whereupon the plaintiff newly assigned the trespasses, and the defendant pleaded the general issue to (he new assignrne.nl.
Read the full summary
Tkespass quart clausum. fregit. The defendant pleaded, that tiie locus in quo was his soil and freehold, whereupon the plaintiff newly assigned the trespasses, and the defendant pleaded the general issue to (he new assignrne.nl. Upon the trial here at February term, 1825, the plaintiff, to prove his title to the close mentioned in the new assign» meat, offered in evidence the extent of an execution issued apon a judgment recovered in August, 1825, by George Frost, against John Ellison, administrator of the estate, winch "was of Abraham Ellison deceased. The defendant’s counsel ob-;pcfed. lint…
1Opinion of the Court
By the court.
It is objected, that, admitting John Ellison to have had the right to appoint an appraiser in the extent now under consideration, it does not appear that he was notified to appoint one. If this objection had been well founded in fact, it is very clear, that it must have prevailed. But, we think, it has no foundation in point of fact. The return states, that he refused to appoint an appraiser ; and a refusal, ex vi termini, imports notice ; so that notice is necessarily implied in what is stated in the return ; and, we entertain no doubt, this is sufficient. In the case of Sewall…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Bowman v. StarkSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1833