Case Name: THE STATE vs. SAMUEL G. BISHOP
Court: New Hampshire Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New Hampshire
Decision Date: 1825-11
Citations: 3 N.H. 312
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE STATE vs. SAMUEL G. BISHOP.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Hampshire Reports
Volume: 3
Pages: 312–313

Head Matter:
COOS,
NOVEMBER TERM, 1825.
THE STATE vs. SAMUEL G. BISHOP.
Writs of certiorari are not limited by the 7th section of the statute of June 30. 1825, entitled 4t an act for the limitation of actions and preventing vexatious 4‘ suits,’’ that section being intended to limit writs of error only.
This was a writ of certiorari, issued on motion of the respondent, commanding two justices of the peace for this county to certify, their doings upon a certain process of forcible entry and detainer, had before them on the complaint of one Willard against the respondent, in the year 1817.
And now the court was moved to quash the writ of certio-rari, as having issued improvidentially, after it was barred by the statute of June 16, 1791. 1 /V’. IL Laws, 165.

Opinion:
By the court.
That statute is now repealed by the act of June 30, 1825, ( 3 N. H. Laws, 65,) and whether the seventh section of the latter act was intended to embrace writs, which had issued before its passage, it is unnecessary to inquire ; because we are of opinion, that writs of certiorari are not limited by that section, which applies only to writs of error. A writ of error issues as a matter of course, without any application to the court, and is therefore properly limited ; but a writ of certiorari is never suffered to issue, without an order of the court, and may always be denied, when the application is made after an unreasonable time.— There is not the same necessity, therefore, for limiting a writ of certiorari, as there is for limiting a writ of error. And we think the language of the statute is not broad enough to comprehend a writ of certiorari.
Motion overruled.