Clark v. Perkins
JOSEPH CLARK v. MATTHEW PERKINS
Clark v. Perkins, 3 N.H. 339 (1826)
Headnotes
Á person non compos mentis is neither capable of indorsing a writ, brought in his name, himself, nor of giving any other person authority to indorse it, with his name.
Where a suit was brought in the name of a person non compos mentis, residing in this state, and the writ indorsed by the attorney, who commenced the action, in a scire facias against the attorney, as indorser of the writ, the plaintiff had leave to amend upon terms.
Summary
This was a scire facias against the defendant, as indorser of a writ.
moved the court for leave to amend the scire facias.
on the ground, that the plaintiff in the writ indorsed by the defendant was an inhabitant of this state, in which case the court never granted leave to amend a scire facias against an indorser. Farnum vs. Bell, ante 12.
Moody then shewed, that the plaintiff in the writ indorsed by Perkins was, at the time the same was sued out, a person no n compos mentis and under guardianship, and contended. that the rule, laid down in Famum vs. Bell, could not apply to such a case ; because the non compos was incapable of indorsing his own writ, and also of giving any authority to indorse it.
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
And the court,
being of that opinion, gave the plaintiff leave to amend upon terms.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.