used to-action that was accurate once but is not true at this time (e.g.: "Her parents used to live in Europe and now they live in the USA")
would v. helping verb for use in a question, request or expression of desire (used to make the statement more polite)

In my opinion (as a non-native English speaker!), I'd say either of them would work, but I believe there is a subtle difference, which makes the word "would" sound somehow better in your sentence. To me, it implies that these things that he did were very typical of him - he would meet them, ask their names, enquire about their hobbies - these are the things that were very characteristic of him, even if he only did them a few times.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 10 mins (2005-06-07 13:54:33 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Oh yes, and I would only use the expression \"he would\" once at the beginning of the sentence.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 12 mins (2005-06-07 13:56:57 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

I just tried to google for \"used to or would\" and found this useful information on: http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/le... :

would or used to?

When we are telling a story and recollecting an event from long ago, we often prefer to use would to describe repeated behaviour in the past, although both would and used to are possible:

Do you remember what we used to get up to when we were teenagers? How I would wait for you nearly every afternoon after school and then we would stroll home together across the park, holding hands, and you would feed the ducks on the pond while I had a cigarette?

Note that would in this sense describes past events and actions. It cannot be used to refer to past states. To describe past states we can only use used to:

I used to live in that house over there.
(NOT: I would live in that house over there.)

I used to own a 1966 Silver Cloud Rolls Royce.
(NOT I would own a 1966 Silver Cloud Rolls Royce.)

I used sometimes to drive to work in it.

I would sometimes drive to work in it.

...I would say. In casual speech, it might sound a bit stiff to say "We used to do such-and-so"-- I think "We'd [we would] always do such-and-so" is more natural and would be my first choice in casual speech.

Both "used to" and "would" can be used to talk about repeated events and actions in the past:

- My grandfather used to/would walk five kilometers each morning.
- She would/used to bake a big chocolate cake every Sunday.

If you want to talk about STATES OR CONDITIONS in the past, you must use "used to":

- He used to be a baker (NOT He would be

compare

used to - regular and important habitual behaviour:
e.g.
robert used to play a lot of football. (not - robert would play ...)
i used to smoke. (not - i would smoke)

would - typical behaviour in the past:
e.g.
on sundays when i was a child we would all get up early and go fishing.
(please note that 'would' is used only once)

NEW 3rd edition of 'practical english usage', michael swan, oxford uni press 2005.

i believe in your case it's typical behaviour in the past, therefore i would say 'would' and probably once.



--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day 19 hrs 21 mins (2005-06-09 09:05:11 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

i think the slight difference you are after lies in the slight nuances in the meanings of the words \'habitual\' and \'typical\'.
although, in many cases, \'used to / would\' are totally interchangeable and can refer to repeated actions and events in the past, \'used to\' is used to talk about regular and habitual behaviour as i have mentioned, to the point of describing sb\'s state:
he used to smoke = he was a smoker

yes, i like my NEW 3rd edition of \'practical english usage\' by m. swan, because the explanations are so much clearer. the 1st edition is being recycled and the 2nd one was given away.