Sanderson v. Taylor

5 A. 717, 64 N.H. 97
Supreme Court of New Hampshire·Decided June 5, 1886·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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

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

5 A. 717 (Sanderson v. Taylor) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

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