Sleeper v. Free Bapt. Assoc'n
This text of 58 N.H. 27 (Sleeper v. Free Bapt. Assoc'n) 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.
Opinion
The defendants are a corporation located in the state. The statute required the writ to be served by an attested copy. Gen. St., c. 204, ss. 12, 14. A service made by summons is insufficient. Bell v. Somerby, 8 N. H. 64; Foster v. Hadduck, 6 N. H. 217; Hayward v. Hartshorn, 3 N. H. 198.
The writ should have been duly served on the defendants twenty-eight days before the court to which it was returnable. Gen. St., c. 204, s. 1.
*28 The defendants could not be legally notified to answer to the action, as ruled at the trial term. Jones v. Smith, 3 N. H. 108 ; Kendrick v. Kimball, 33 N. H. 484; Nelson v. Swett, 4 N. H. 256; Arnold v. Tourtellot, 13 Pick. 172.
Action dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
58 N.H. 27, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sleeper-v-free-bapt-assocn-nh-1876.