Sanderson v. Taylor

5 A. 717, 64 N.H. 97
CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire
DecidedJune 5, 1886
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 5 A. 717 (Sanderson v. Taylor) 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
Sanderson v. Taylor, 5 A. 717, 64 N.H. 97 (N.H. 1886).

Opinion

Doe, C. J.

Notice was properly given by copy. Laws 1883, c. 22. The sheriff’s non-execution of the command to attach property deprived the defendant of no notice or advantage to which he was entitled. The requirement of notice by copy or summons when property is attached (G. L., a. 223, s. 3) does not make the validity of such notice depend upon an attachment. The ancient practice of making a false return of an attachment of a chip is useless, and not commendable. The case is not an exception to the general rule, that a party cannot object to anything that is not injurious to him. Shirley v. Lunenburg, 11 Mass. 379, 383; Perley v. Parker, 20 N. H. 263, 270; McKean v. Cutler, 48 N. H. 370, 375; Lisbon v. Lyman, 49 N. H. 553, 585; M. & M. R. Co.v. Jurey, 111 U. S. 584, 593.

Motion denied.

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

Haverhill Iron Works v. Hale
14 A. 78 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1887)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 A. 717, 64 N.H. 97, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanderson-v-taylor-nh-1886.