Meserve v. Hicks

Decided December 15, 1851

Superior Court of New Hampshire · decided 1851-12-15

The issue in this case was upon a plea in abatement, that the name and office of the officer who served the writ by virtue of which the defendant’s goods were attached, were not indorsed upon the summons when delivered to the defendant. The plaintiff contended that the summons, at the time it was delivered to the defendant, was indorsed in pencil, and admitted it was not indorsed with ink.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently March 1875

1 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“that however a signature in pencil may be held sufficient in private writings, writing in pencil is not sufficient in public records, nor in papers drawn to be used in legal proceedings which must become public records.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Lord v. Dunbarton

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1851-12-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Bell, J.

¶1The sheriff was a competent witness. He could neither gain nor lose by the event of the cause, and the verdict would not be evidence in his favor nor against him.

¶2The attorney was not a competent witness. He was substantially the indorser of the writ. By fair implication, from the situation of the parties, he is answerable to the indorser for the costs which may be recovered against him, and the indorser is concluded as to the amount of the costs, and as to the liability of the plaintiff for the payment of them, by the judgment in this case.

¶3In the case of Stone & a. v. Sprague, ubi seq., we have decided that however a signature in pensil may be held sufficient in private writings, writing in pencil is not sufficient in public records, nor in papers drawn to be used in legal proceedings, which must become public records. Verdict set aside.

¶4Judgment for the defendants.