Pressey v. Snow
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On exceptions. From the bill of exceptions, it appears that the actions were begun by writs of attachment, and that the plaintiff was not an inhabitant of the state. On the second day of the term, the defendant filed a plea in abatement, and a motion to dismiss the actions for want of an indorser. Plaintiff’s counsel, during motion hour, on the same day, moved for leave to furnish an indorser.
Read the full summary
On exceptions. From the bill of exceptions, it appears that the actions were begun by writs of attachment, and that the plaintiff was not an inhabitant of the state. On the second day of the term, the defendant filed a plea in abatement, and a motion to dismiss the actions for want of an indorser. Plaintiff’s counsel, during motion hour, on the same day, moved for leave to furnish an indorser. The plaintiff contended: First, that by the statutes no indorser was required; second, it was- within the discretionary power of the court to permit the writs to be indorsed. The court overruled these…
1Opinion of the Court
Foster, J-.
These actions were brought by writs of summons and attachment. The plaintiff was a citizen of New York. Neither of the writs were indorsed before entry by any sufficient inhabitant of this state. Upon the second day, of the return term, the defendant in each case, filed a plea in abatement and motion to dismiss for want of said indorser. Thereafter, during motion hour of that day plaintiff’s counsel moved for leave to furnish an indorser and to have each of the writs indorsed, contending first, — That by the statute no indorser was required; and second,— That it was within the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Clark v. New England Mutual Fire InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1850
3Cited by1 opinion
- Oliver v. KallockSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1935