Parsons & Sons Lumber Co. v. Southwick

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Parsons & Sons Lumber Co. v. Southwick

139 A.2d 883, 101 N.H. 258, 1958 N.H. LEXIS 12

CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire

DecidedMarch 20, 1958

DocketNo. 4645

StatusPublished

This text of 139 A.2d 883 (Parsons & Sons Lumber Co. v. Southwick) 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

Parsons & Sons Lumber Co. v. Southwick, 139 A.2d 883, 101 N.H. 258, 1958 N.H. LEXIS 12 (N.H. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Kenison, C. J.

This is a transitory action (Emery v. Hovey, 84 N. H. 499) on promissory notes payable in Massachusetts brought by a New York corporation against the defendants, one of whom is a resident of this state, and the other a resident of Massachusetts. A court may acquire jurisdiction over an individual by personal service upon him within the state even though he may be here only temporarily. Restatement, Judgments, s. 15, comment a. If the individual is personally served with process within the state it is immaterial that he is domiciled elsewhere or that immediately after the service of process he leaves the state. Restatement, Conflict of Laws, s. 78. Physical presence within the state is the traditional basis of jurisdiction at common law. Restatement of the Law, Second, Conflict of Laws, s. 78, comment a (tentative draft No. 3, 1956). “If a citizen of another state is found here, and process is served on him personally, that gives the court jurisdiction.” Libbey v. Hodgdon, 9 N. H. 394, 396. See Taplin v. Atwater, 297 Mass. 302; Young v. Ross, 31 N. H. 201. Consequently, cases in which jurisdiction has been denied where the defendant was a nonresident and not served with process within the state are inapplicable. Wyman v. Uphaus, [260]*260100 N. H. 1; Rosenblum v. Company, 99 N. H. 267, 269; Nottingham v. Company, 84 N. H. 419.

Since the defendants have no special immunity or privilege exempting them from service of process within the state, the defendants’ plea to the jurisdiction was properly overruled. Pitman v. Cunningham, 100 N. H. 49. The Trial Court properly found that the claim that the action was brought in New Hampshire to harass the defendants was not established by sufficient evidence. There is no occasion for us to consider whether the action should be dismissed under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Thistle v. Halstead, 96 N. H. 87.

Exceptions overruled.

All concurred.

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

Kenison, C. J.

This is a transitory action (Emery v. Hovey, 84 N. H. 499) on promissory notes payable in Massachusetts brought by a New York corporation against the defendants, one of whom is a resident of this state, and the other a resident of Massachusetts. A court may acquire jurisdiction over an individual by personal service upon him within the state even though he may be here only temporarily. Restatement, Judgments, s. 15, comment a. If the individual is personally served with process within the state it is immaterial that he is domiciled elsewhere or that immediately after the service of process he leaves the state. Restatement, Conflict of Laws, s. 78. Physical presence within the state is the traditional basis of jurisdiction at common law. Restatement of the Law, Second, Conflict of Laws, s. 78, comment a (tentative draft No. 3, 1956). “If a citizen of another state is found here, and process is served on him personally, that gives the court jurisdiction.” Libbey v. Hodgdon, 9 N. H. 394, 396. See Taplin v. Atwater, 297 Mass. 302; Young v. Ross, 31 N. H. 201. Consequently, cases in which jurisdiction has been denied where the defendant was a nonresident and not served with process within the state are inapplicable. Wyman v. Uphaus, [260]*260100 N. H. 1; Rosenblum v. Company, 99 N. H. 267, 269; Nottingham v. Company, 84 N. H. 419.

Since the defendants have no special immunity or privilege exempting them from service of process within the state, the defendants’ plea to the jurisdiction was properly overruled. Pitman v. Cunningham, 100 N. H. 49. The Trial Court properly found that the claim that the action was brought in New Hampshire to harass the defendants was not established by sufficient evidence. There is no occasion for us to consider whether the action should be dismissed under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Thistle v. Halstead, 96 N. H. 87.

Exceptions overruled.

All concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A.2d 883, 101 N.H. 258, 1958 N.H. LEXIS 12, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parsons-sons-lumber-co-v-southwick-nh-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack