Holt v. Quimby

6 N.H. 79
Superior Court of New Hampshire·Decided November 15, 1832·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

By the court.

It was the misfortune of the plaintiff’s attorney to be absent, when the order as to the set off was made. Had lie been present, and interposed his lien, that order would not have been made. But two years have now elapsed, and the circumstances of the plaintiff may have materially altered in that time. We think it would be altogther unreasonable, at this time, to rescind the order and compel the defendant to pay the remainder of the judgment against him, leaving him to obtain satisfaction of his judgment against the plaintiff as he may.

Motion overruled.

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

Holt v. Quimby, 6 N.H. 79 (N.H. Super. Ct. 1832).

6 N.H. 79 (Holt v. Quimby) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Stafford v. Palidore
1 V.I. 134 (Virgin Islands, 1928)