Davis v. Central New Hampshire Power Co.
Eugene Davis v. the Central New Hampshire Power Company of Maine.
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
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.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.