Knapp v. Cox

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Knapp v. Cox

58 N.H. 488

DecidedAugust 5, 1878

StatusPublished

This text of 58 N.H. 488 (Knapp v. Cox) 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

Knapp v. Cox, 58 N.H. 488 (N.H. 1878).

Pincite

Opinion

Foster, J.

The plaintiff contends that the return is false, in this, that the defendant did not take that possession or control of the property without which there could be no attachment. But the averment of the declaration, that since the date of the attachment the hay and wood have been in the custody of the defendant as a deputy sheriff, must be understood to mean that the defendant took the necessary possession. The attachment is afterwards called a “ pretended attachment ; ” but the declaration is not made good by the inconsistency of averment and epithet.

Demurrer sustained.

Stanley, J., did not sit.

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

Foster, J.

The plaintiff contends that the return is false, in this, that the defendant did not take that possession or control of the property without which there could be no attachment. But the averment of the declaration, that since the date of the attachment the hay and wood have been in the custody of the defendant as a deputy sheriff, must be understood to mean that the defendant took the necessary possession. The attachment is afterwards called a “ pretended attachment ; ” but the declaration is not made good by the inconsistency of averment and epithet.

Demurrer sustained.

Stanley, J., did not sit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 N.H. 488, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knapp-v-cox-nh-1878.