White v. White
This text of 60 N.H. 210 (White v. White) 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
An order of court authorizing the attachment was not necessary (Laws of 1879, c. 57, s. 28); and there is no occasion to inquire whether there were any defects of notice or entry. If objections to such defects were not waived by the defendant’s general appearance (Colby v. Knapp, 13 N. H. 175; *211 Wright v. Boynton, 87 N. H. 9, 19; March v. Eastern R. R., 40 N. H. 548, 583), they were waived by bis appearance and motion for a continuance. His motion to dismiss, although made within the first four days of the first term (Seaver v. Allen, 48 N. H. 473), was not seasonably made after his motion for a continuance was submitted. Smith v. Whittier, 9 N. H. 464; Downer v. Shaw, 22 N. H. 281; State v. Richmond, 26 N. H. 232, 242; Gilmanton v. Ham, 38 N. H. 108; Robinson v. Potter, 43 N. H. 191; Peebles v. Rand, 43 N. H. 342; Candia v. Chandler, 58 N. H. 127.
Exceptions overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
60 N.H. 210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-white-nh-1880.