26 N.H. 527 | Superior Court of New Hampshire | 1853
The writ in this case was returnable before a justice of,the peace, and the service was by attachment of the real estate of the defendant. This point was settled by this court in the case of Everett v. Evans, decided
Upon the second point, the court ruled, in substance, that if an indorser of a writ is a resident in this State, and legally competent to bind himself by an indorsement, his pecuniary ability is not to be inquired into.
The law provides that if the plaintiff is not an inhabitant of the State, the writ shall be indorsed by some responsible person who is such inhabitant. Rev. Stat. chap. 183 § 17.
It would seem that the meaning of the word “ responsible” could not admit of any doubt, in this connection. Strictly speaking, the word means “ liable, answerable,” rather than “ able to discharge an obligation;” but the latter
We think that the legislature meant by the words “ responsible person,” a person who is able to pay the costs which, by his indorsement, he became liable to pay, in the event of the plaintiff’s failure in his suit, and that the ruling of the court below was erroneous, and this opinion is to be certified to the court of common pleas.