State v. McGlone

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

State v. McGlone

78 A.2d 528, 96 N.H. 448, 1951 N.H. LEXIS 186

CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire

DecidedFebruary 6, 1951

Docket3999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 78 A.2d 528 (State v. McGlone) 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

State v. McGlone, 78 A.2d 528, 96 N.H. 448, 1951 N.H. LEXIS 186 (N.H. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

Kexisox, J.

The question whether it is lawful for a person to operate a vehicle in this state without a New Hampshire license when his Connecticut license has already expired logically demands a negative answer. However the defendant maintains that he was entitled to operate vehicles in this state until his next birthday by virtue of Laws 1949, c. 170. This statute is an amendment to R. L., c. 117, s. 8, and the pertinent part reads as follows: “All licenses to operate a motor vehicle which expire on March 31, 1950 shall continue in full force, effect and validity until the anniversary of the date of birth of the license holder next following the date of March 31, 1950. ...”

For more than a decade motor vehicle licenses in New Hampshire have expired “on March thirty-first next following the date of their issue.” R. L., c. 117, s. 8. When the 1949 Legislature extended this period until the anniversary of the date of birth of the license holder, the obvious intent was to limit it to licenses issued in this state. Considering the great diversity of the expiration dates of motor vehicle *450 licenses in other states, it cannot be assumed that the 1949 amendment was to be applied only to those other states which issue licenses “which expire on March 31, 1950.” Even if this unlikely assumption was made in the present case, it would be of no benefit to the defendant since his Connecticut license did not expire on that date. Consequently the 1949 amendment is not to be construed as affecting or extending the expiration dates of licenses issued in other states. It is a general rule of statutory construction that statutes are not intended to have any extraterritorial effect. Merrill v. Railroad, 63 N. H. 259, 265; Ross v. Eaton, 90 N. H. 271, 272. The defendant’s Connecticut license by its express terms had expired prior to the date of the alleged offense of May 4, 1950 (Conn. General Statutes (1949), c. 110, s. 2381) and was not extended by Laws 1949, c. 170. 1 Blashfield (P erm. ed.) Part 1, Cyc. of Automobile Law and Practice, s. 288.

The minimum requirements for the operation of a vehicle in this state are that the operator shall be licensed either in New Hampshire or the foreign state. R. L., c. 117, ss. 1,13,14, as amended. Since the defendant has complied with neither requirement, the motion to dismiss the complaint was properly denied and the order is

Exception overruled.

All concurred.

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

Kexisox, J.

The question whether it is lawful for a person to operate a vehicle in this state without a New Hampshire license when his Connecticut license has already expired logically demands a negative answer. However the defendant maintains that he was entitled to operate vehicles in this state until his next birthday by virtue of Laws 1949, c. 170. This statute is an amendment to R. L., c. 117, s. 8, and the pertinent part reads as follows: “All licenses to operate a motor vehicle which expire on March 31, 1950 shall continue in full force, effect and validity until the anniversary of the date of birth of the license holder next following the date of March 31, 1950. ...”

For more than a decade motor vehicle licenses in New Hampshire have expired “on March thirty-first next following the date of their issue.” R. L., c. 117, s. 8. When the 1949 Legislature extended this period until the anniversary of the date of birth of the license holder, the obvious intent was to limit it to licenses issued in this state. Considering the great diversity of the expiration dates of motor vehicle *450 licenses in other states, it cannot be assumed that the 1949 amendment was to be applied only to those other states which issue licenses “which expire on March 31, 1950.” Even if this unlikely assumption was made in the present case, it would be of no benefit to the defendant since his Connecticut license did not expire on that date. Consequently the 1949 amendment is not to be construed as affecting or extending the expiration dates of licenses issued in other states. It is a general rule of statutory construction that statutes are not intended to have any extraterritorial effect. Merrill v. Railroad, 63 N. H. 259, 265; Ross v. Eaton, 90 N. H. 271, 272. The defendant’s Connecticut license by its express terms had expired prior to the date of the alleged offense of May 4, 1950 (Conn. General Statutes (1949), c. 110, s. 2381) and was not extended by Laws 1949, c. 170. 1 Blashfield (P erm. ed.) Part 1, Cyc. of Automobile Law and Practice, s. 288.

The minimum requirements for the operation of a vehicle in this state are that the operator shall be licensed either in New Hampshire or the foreign state. R. L., c. 117, ss. 1,13,14, as amended. Since the defendant has complied with neither requirement, the motion to dismiss the complaint was properly denied and the order is

Exception overruled.

All concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 A.2d 528, 96 N.H. 448, 1951 N.H. LEXIS 186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mcglone-nh-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack