Kingsbury v. Cooke

Superior Court of New Hampshire

Kingsbury v. Cooke

1 Smith & H. 217

DecidedMay 15, 1808

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Smith & H. 217 (Kingsbury v. Cooke) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior 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

Kingsbury v. Cooke, 1 Smith & H. 217 (N.H. Super. Ct. 1808).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Curiam.

The statute, ed. 1805, p. 88, contains no exception for the case of set-offs. The indorser is bound to pay all the costs that plaintiff [defendant] shall recover in the action. The indorser must be supposed conusant of the law, as he was himself a lawyer; and of the defendant’s right to plead a set-off.

The second plea goes to show that no judgment should have been rendered. It is enough for us to know that a judgment was, in fact, rendered for the defendant. We cannot, on this scire facias, inquire into the merits of that judgment.

Judgment for plaintiff.

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

Pee Curiam.

The statute, ed. 1805, p. 88, contains no exception for the case of set-offs. The indorser is bound to pay all the costs that plaintiff [defendant] shall recover in the action. The indorser must be supposed conusant of the law, as he was himself a lawyer; and of the defendant’s right to plead a set-off.

The second plea goes to show that no judgment should have been rendered. It is enough for us to know that a judgment was, in fact, rendered for the defendant. We cannot, on this scire facias, inquire into the merits of that judgment.

Judgment for plaintiff.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Smith & H. 217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kingsbury-v-cooke-nhsuperct-1808.