TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

White v. White

White v. White.

White v. White, 60 N.H. 210 (1880)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of New Hampshire · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 5, 1880
Judges
Stanley, Foster
Citations
60 N.H. 210
Headnotes
Objections to defects of service and entry of a libel for divorce are waived by a general appearance and a motion for a continuance. 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.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Stanley

Stanley, J.

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.

Exceptions overruled.

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

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1923: 119232026peak 1923 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Dolber v. Young123 A. 218 (N.H. 1923)

Most recent

  1. Dolber v. Young123 A. 218 (N.H. 1923)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Candia v. Chandler, 58 N.H. 127 (1877) 4

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list