Burney v. Hodgdon
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
In the writ, which is dated May 3, 1889, the defendant is described as “ of Milan in the county and state aforesaid.” May 6, 1889, an officer attached real estate and made return concerning the defendant, “ not to be found in my precinct.” The action was entered at the October term, 1889, and continued for notice, and notice was given by publication.
Read the full summary
In the writ, which is dated May 3, 1889, the defendant is described as “ of Milan in the county and state aforesaid.” May 6, 1889, an officer attached real estate and made return concerning the defendant, “ not to be found in my precinct.” The action was entered at the October term, 1889, and continued for notice, and notice was given by publication. At the April term, 1890, the defendant appeared specially, and pleaded in abatement that on the day of the date of the writ, and all the time between that day and the return day, he was an inhabitant of this state, and during all that time was…
1Opinion of the CourtDoe, C. J.
The construction of the statutes, settled by general practice, is, that either of several forms of return, including the one made in this case, is evidence on which an action may be entered and continued for notice. The notice given by publication was legal. A demurrer to the plea in abatement should be sustained.
Case discharged.
Smith, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
2Cited by3 opinions
- National Bank v. Mascoma Flannel Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1899
- Rainford v. NewportSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1928
- Therrien v. ScammonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1935