Davis v. Central New Hampshire Power Co.

109 A. 263, 79 N.H. 377, 1920 N.H. LEXIS 19
CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire
DecidedMarch 2, 1920
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 109 A. 263 (Davis v. Central New Hampshire Power Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Davis v. Central New Hampshire Power Co., 109 A. 263, 79 N.H. 377, 1920 N.H. LEXIS 19 (N.H. 1920).

Opinion

Peaslee, J.

The defendant has furnished no brief. The record shows but two possible objections to the order which are now open for consideration. These are that the defendant is a foreign corporation and that the books and documents of which discovery is sought are outside the state. These objections, with others not now material, were urged in the superior court.

The fact that the defendant is a foreign corporation is of no consequence, for it has appeared generally in the suit, and consequently has submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the court. March v. Railroad, 40 N. H. 548; Morrill v. Railroad, 55 N. H. 531.

A decree for discovery is in personam, and the usual rule in such cases applies. When equity has jurisdiction of the person a valid decree can be made even though it regulates the party’s conduct touching property outside the state. Great Falls Mfg. Co. v. Worster, 23 N. H. 462.

Exception overruled.

All concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Gutbier v. Hannaford Bros.
842 A.2d 64 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
109 A. 263, 79 N.H. 377, 1920 N.H. LEXIS 19, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-central-new-hampshire-power-co-nh-1920.