Morgan v. Joyce

27 A. 225, 66 N.H. 538
CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire
DecidedJune 5, 1891
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 27 A. 225 (Morgan v. Joyce) 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
Morgan v. Joyce, 27 A. 225, 66 N.H. 538 (N.H. 1891).

Opinion

Chase, J.

By employing the attorney to bring and prosecute • the action, the plaintiff authorized him to give directions for service of the writ. Alton v. Gilmanton, 2 N. H. 520; Miner v. Smith, 6 N. H. 219; Hanson v. Hoitt, 14 N. H. 56; Stevens v. Colby, 46 N. H. 163. The plaintiff is not in a position to object to the character of the evidence of service on the trustee. He has not been injured by the absence of a formal return of service. The only reason why a formal return may not now be made and put in evidence is because the writ is in the possession of the plaintiff’s attorney. The plaintiff cannot withhold the writ and thereby deprive the defendant of the means of showing service by, primary evidence, and still be allowed to insist that secondary evidence • is incompetent. Under the circumstances, oral testimony was competent to show compliance with the attorney’s order. See, also, Smith v. Moore, 17 N. H. 380.

Judgment for the defendant.

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

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

Related

Gibson v. Holmes
62 A. 11 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1905)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
27 A. 225, 66 N.H. 538, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morgan-v-joyce-nh-1891.