Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

16 N.H. 359

Taylor v. Emery

Superior Court of New Hampshire

Decided December 15, 1844

Superior Court of New Hampshire · decided 1844-12-15

Writ or Entry. The laud in controversy was formerly tho property of one T. G. Emery, and is claimed by the demandant by virtue of an attachment made at his suit on the 17th day of July 1839, and a subsequent levy under a judgment obtained thereon. By the return of the officer it appears that he attached the land on the day specified, and left at the office of the town clerk a true and attested copy of the writ, with a true and attested copy of his return indorsed thereon.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 1881

1 state decisions

Relies on Whittier v. Varney

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1844-12-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Gilchrist, J.

¶1It was decided in Whittier v. Varney, 10 N. H. 291, that an officer’s return of an execution might be amended, notwithstanding the intervening rights of other parties, if the return contain sufficient matter to indicate that in making the extent all the requisitions of the statute were probably complied with. The principle of that case is applicable to the return of an attachment; but in the present instance there is a difficulty in making the application. If the officer were now to amend his return so as to denote the hour, according to the motion, the amendment according to the doctrine of the case cited, *361relating back to the commencement, then the copy left with the town clerk would not be a true copy; and the variance might have been available to the party claiming under the mortgage, in another form. The motion is for that cause denied.

¶2In the form in which the return stands, there is no presumption in law that it was made at an earlier hour than five o’clock in the afternoon, the time when the record of the mortgage is shown to have been made. Of course the demandant does not show that his title was of earlier inception than the tenant’s, whose possession in the absence of such proof must prevail.

¶3Plaintiff nonsuit.

/16/nh/359 · .json · Public domain