Brown v. Copp

Superior Court of New Hampshire

Brown v. Copp

5 N.H. 346

Superior Court of New Hampshire·Decided January 15, 1831·Published

Opinion

By the court.

We are of opinion that the replication in this case is sufficient. The extended time for making the award may be considered as a substitution for the time mentioned in the condition, and then the remedy upon the bond is the same as if the extended time had been originally in the condition. There is no doubt, that a defeasance may be made or altered, after the obligation is executed. The case of Creig v. Talbot, 2 B. & C. 119, is an authority directly in point.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By the court.

We are of opinion that the replication in this case is sufficient. The extended time for making the award may be considered as a substitution for the time mentioned in the condition, and then the remedy upon the bond is the same as if the extended time had been originally in the condition. There is no doubt, that a defeasance may be made or altered, after the obligation is executed. The case of Creig v. Talbot, 2 B. & C. 119, is an authority directly in point.

Brown v. Copp, 5 N.H. 346 (N.H. Super. Ct. 1831).

Pincite

5 N.H. 346 (Brown v. Copp) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.