Potter v. Lefebvre

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Potter v. Lefebvre

66 A.2d 643, 95 N.H. 482, 1949 N.H. LEXIS 201

CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire

DecidedJune 7, 1949

DocketNo. 3818.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 66 A.2d 643 (Potter v. Lefebvre) 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

Potter v. Lefebvre, 66 A.2d 643, 95 N.H. 482, 1949 N.H. LEXIS 201 (N.H. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

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

Per Curiam.

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 A.2d 643, 95 N.H. 482, 1949 N.H. LEXIS 201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/potter-v-lefebvre-nh-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack