Meserve v. Hicks

24 N.H. 295
CourtSuperior Court of New Hampshire
DecidedDecember 15, 1851
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 24 N.H. 295 (Meserve v. Hicks) 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
Meserve v. Hicks, 24 N.H. 295 (N.H. Super. Ct. 1851).

Opinion

Bell, J.

The sheriff was a competent witness. He could neither gain nor lose by the event of the cause, and the verdict would not be evidence in his favor nor against him.

The attorney was not a competent witness. He was substantially the indorser of the writ. By fair implication, from the situation of the parties, he is answerable to the indorser for the costs which may be recovered against him, and the indorser is concluded as to the amount of the costs, and as to the liability of the plaintiff for the payment of them, by the judgment in this case.

In the case of Stone & a. v. Sprague, ubi seq., we have decided that however a signature in pensil may be held sufficient in private writings, writing in pencil is not sufficient in public records, nor in papers drawn to be used in legal proceedings, which must become public records. Verdict set aside.

Judgment for the defendants.

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

Related

Lord v. Dunbarton
55 N.H. 245 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1875)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
24 N.H. 295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meserve-v-hicks-nhsuperct-1851.