Town of Stoddard v. Cockran

6 N.H. 160
Superior Court of New Hampshire·Decided July 15, 1833·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

By the court. *

The statute declares that summonses, il in all cases, shall briefly give the same information to the defendant which the declaration gives more at large, and shall contain the substance thereof.” In this case there is a material variance between the bond described in the declaration and the bond described in the summons. The bond, mentioned in the declaration, is not a bond payable on demand. It was not payable at all until the town, by vote, directed how it should be paid. The summons then did not give briefly the same information to the defendant which the writ gave moré at large. And, as the statute directs that in such a case the writ shall abate, the plea, in this case, must be adjudged sufficient.

Footnotes

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

Town of Stoddard v. Cockran, 6 N.H. 160 (N.H. Super. Ct. 1833).

6 N.H. 160 (Town of Stoddard v. Cockran) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pitman v. Perkins
28 N.H. 90 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1853)
Moore v. Chesley
17 N.H. 151 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1845)
Wendell v. Moulton
14 N.H. 573 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1844)