Potter v. Lefebvre
66 A.2d 643, 95 N.H. 482, 1949 N.H. LEXIS 201
Opinion
The ruling of the Trial Court was correct. The law upon this point is correctly stated in the Restatement, Conflict of Laws, s. 603, as follows: “If action is barred by the statute of limitations of the forum, no action can be maintained though action is not barred in the state where the cause of action arose.” See also, Connecticut &c. Co. v. Railroad, 78 N. H. 553, 555. The order, therefore, is
Exceptions overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Potter v. Lefebvre, 66 A.2d 643, 95 N.H. 482, 1949 N.H. LEXIS 201 (N.H. 1949).
66 A.2d 643 (Potter v. Lefebvre) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Smith v. Morbark Industries, Inc.
733 F. Supp. 484 (D. New Hampshire, 1990)
Le Witt v. Warner Bros. Pictures Distributing Corp.
158 F. Supp. 307 (D. New Hampshire, 1957)