Gilman v. Bartlett

Superior Court of New Hampshire

Gilman v. Bartlett

20 N.H. 168

Superior Court of New Hampshire·Decided July 15, 1849·Published

Opinion

Gilchrist, C. J.

The question arising in this case was considered by the court in Sanborn v. Pease, in the county of Rockingham; when it was held that by the terms of the Rev. Stat., ch. 175, sec. 7, requiring the appellant to enter into recognizance with “ sufficient sureties,” there must be more sureties than one. The appeal, therefore, not having been regularly granted, must be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Gilchrist, C. J.

The question arising in this case was considered by the court in Sanborn v. Pease, in the county of Rockingham; when it was held that by the terms of the Rev. Stat., ch. 175, sec. 7, requiring the appellant to enter into recognizance with “ sufficient sureties,” there must be more sureties than one. The appeal, therefore, not having been regularly granted, must be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Gilman v. Bartlett, 20 N.H. 168 (N.H. Super. Ct. 1849).

Pincite

20 N.H. 168 (Gilman v. Bartlett) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.