History
  • No items yet
midpage
White v. White
60 N.H. 210
| N.H. | 1880
|
Check Treatment

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; *Page 211 Wright v. Boynton, 37 N.H. 9, 19; March v. Eastern, R. R., 40 N.H. 548,583), they were waived by his 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,48 N.H. 342; Candia v. Chandler, 58 N.H. 127.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Case Details

Case Name: White v. White
Court Name: Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Date Published: Dec 5, 1880
Citation: 60 N.H. 210
Court Abbreviation: N.H.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.