Sleeper v. Free Bapt. Assoc'n

58 N.H. 27
Supreme Court of New Hampshire·Decided December 5, 1876·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Bingham, J.

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.

Stanley, J., did not sit.

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

Sleeper v. Free Bapt. Assoc'n, 58 N.H. 27 (N.H. 1876).

58 N.H. 27 (Sleeper v. Free Bapt. Assoc'n) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Chase v. Chase
61 N.H. 123 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1881)