Gray v. Fifield

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Gray v. Fifield

59 N.H. 131

CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire

DecidedJune 5, 1879

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 59 N.H. 131 (Gray v. Fifield) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gray v. Fifield, 59 N.H. 131 (N.H. 1879).

Pincite

Opinion

Smith, J.

The referee was warranted in finding that the defendant was in a position to receive notice of a suit from a summons left at his home in Franklin. Not only his legal domicile, but his place of abode, within the meaning of the statute, was in this state. Gilman v. Cutts, 23 N. H. 376, 385 — S. C., 27 N. H. 348, 358; Ward v. Cole, 32 N. H. 452; Brown v. Rollins, 44 N. H. 446.

Judgment for the defendant.

Bingham, J., did not sit: the others concurred.

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

Smith, J.

The referee was warranted in finding that the defendant was in a position to receive notice of a suit from a summons left at his home in Franklin. Not only his legal domicile, but his place of abode, within the meaning of the statute, was in this state. Gilman v. Cutts, 23 N. H. 376, 385 — S. C., 27 N. H. 348, 358; Ward v. Cole, 32 N. H. 452; Brown v. Rollins, 44 N. H. 446.

Judgment for the defendant.

Bingham, J., did not sit: the others concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 N.H. 131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gray-v-fifield-nh-1879.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack