Whitcher v. Whitcher
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, upon a promissory note. At the September term of the common pleas, the writ and note having been lost or mislaid, the plaintiff’s counsel offered copies of the original writ, and note, and moved for leave to file a new writ, and to use the copies produced, upon the trial.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, upon a promissory note. At the September term of the common pleas, the writ and note having been lost or mislaid, the plaintiff’s counsel offered copies of the original writ, and note, and moved for leave to file a new writ, and to use the copies produced, upon the trial. He introduced evidence showing, that certain affidavits, used at the previous term, for the purpose of obtaining a continuance, were ordered to be filed, and were filed ; and that according to the best recollection of the counsel, the writ and note were filed with them; that diligent search had been made for them,…
1Opinion of the Court
Parker, (J. J.
A plaintiff is not necessarily subjected to the loss of his cause, because his writ has been lost. If a note is lost, the party to whom it is due may show its existence and loss, and, proving the contents of it, he is entitled to a verdict. If a deed is lost, the grantee has not thereby lost his title, but may maintain, or recover, the possession, upon evidence of its existence, duly executed, with its delivery, and loss. And so, where his writ is lost, he may, in a proper case, have leave to file a new writ. This appears from the case, Mattocks vs. Bishop, 4 N. H. Rep. 439,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Mattocks v. BishopSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1828
3Cited by1 opinion
- Pettingill v. McGregorSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1841