White v. White

Decided December 5, 1880

Supreme Court of New Hampshire · decided 1880-12-05

<p>Objections to defects of service and entry of a libel for divorce are waived by a general appearance and a motion for a continuance.</p> <p>Libel ror Divorce, commenced by writ of attachment and summons, in the ordinary form of such writs, commanding the defendant to be summoned to answer to the plaintiff “ in a libel for divorce hereunto annexed.” Then followed, as a declaration inserted in the writ, a libel for divorce in the ordinary form, containing a prayer for alimony, and signed by the plaintiff. The writ was dated June 18, 1880, and was served by an attachment and giving a copy to the defendant June 21, 1880. On the first day of the first term, the defendant entered a general appearance on the docket, and moved for a continuance. The motion was argued and denied. Afterwards, within the first four days of the term, the case was tried on its merits; and at the trial, the defendant moved to dismiss because the libel was not filed till the first day of the term, no order of notice was issued, and no legal service made. The court denied the motion, and the defendant excepted.</p>

Relies on State v. Richmond · Niemi v. Boston & Maine Railroad · March v. Eastern Railroad

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1880-12-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently December 1952

3 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Stanley, J.

¶1 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.

¶2 Exceptions overruled.

Foster, J., did not sit: the others concurred.

Download

Copy

Embed on your site

Hover to preview · click to copy the code

Search Wikipedia →

Case posture

Posture: LIBEL FOR DIVORCE, commenced by writ of attachment and summons, in the ordinary form of such writs, commanding the defendant to be summoned to answer to the plaintiff in a libel for divorce hereunto annexed. Then followed, as a declaration inserted in the writ, a libel for divorce in the ordinary form, containing a prayer for alimony, and signed by the plaintiff. The writ was dated June 18, 1880, and was served by an attachment and giving a copy to the defendant June 21, 1880. On the first day of the first term, the defendant entered a general appearance on the docket, and moved for a continuance. The motion was argued and denied. Afterwards, within the first four days of the term, the case was tried on its merits; and at the trial, the defendant moved to dismiss because the libel was not filed till the first day of the term, no order of notice was issued, and no legal service made. The court denied the motion, and the defendant excepted.

Source: CourtListener

Court

Supreme Court of New Hampshire