Pendexter v. Cate

20 A. 331, 66 N.H. 270
CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire
DecidedJune 5, 1890
StatusPublished

This text of 20 A. 331 (Pendexter v. Cate) 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
Pendexter v. Cate, 20 A. 331, 66 N.H. 270 (N.H. 1890).

Opinion

Clark, J.

The return of the officer that he “ made service on the within named defendant by delivering a summons in hand for his appearance at court ” was sufficient. It cannot, by any reasonable interpretation, be construed to mean a delivery in hand to .any other person than the defendant.

As the court had jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the case and of the person of the defendant, the record is incontrovertible, and the judgment cannot be inquired into in this suit. Lawrence v. Smith, 45 N. H. 533, 537; Fowler v. Brooks, 64 N. H. 423; McDonald v. Drew, 64 N. H. 547.

Judgment for the plaintiffs.

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

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

Related

Fowler v. Brooks
13 A. 417 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1887)
McDonald v. Drew
15 A. 148 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1888)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
20 A. 331, 66 N.H. 270, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pendexter-v-cate-nh-1890.