TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Davis v. Central New Hampshire Power Co.

Eugene Davis v. the Central New Hampshire Power Company of Maine.

Davis v. Cent. N.H. Power Co., 109 A. 263 (N.H. 1920)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of New Hampshire · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 2, 1920
Judges
Peaslee
Citations
109 A. 26379 N.H. 3771920 N.H. LEXIS 19
Headnotes
Discovery of documents in aid of an action at law may be ordered upon a motion in the form of a bill for discovery against a foreign corporation which has appeared generally, though the documents are outside the state. Bill por Discovery, in the form of a motion, in aid of an action of assumpsit to recover for services alleged to have been rendered the defendant by the plaintiff. At the hearing on this motion it appeared that the documents sought to be discovered were located at the offices of the defendant in Brattleboro, Vt., and Portland, Me. The defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of Maine. The court having found that the plaintiff was unable properly to prepare his case without an opportunity to inspect the documents in question and that justice required their production, ordered discovery, and the defendant excepted. The writ shows an attachment of the defendant’s real estate in New Hampshire, and an acceptance of service by defendant’s attorney, who appeared generally after the writ was entered.
Summary
Transferred from the April term, 1919, of the superior court by Marble, J.

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

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.

2004: 120042026peak 2004 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Gutbier v. Hannaford Bros.842 A.2d 64 (N.H. 2004)

Most recent

  1. Gutbier v. Hannaford Bros.842 A.2d 64 (N.H. 2004)

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.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Morrill v. Boston & Me. R.R., 55 N.H. 531 (1875) 1

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list