Blanchette v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co.

• Decision Date: 02 May 1939
• Docket Number: No. 3072.,3072.
• Citation: 6 A.2d 161
• Parties: BLANCHETTE v. NEW ENGLAND TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. (two cases).
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

6 A.2d 161

BLANCHETTE

v. NEW ENGLAND TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. (two cases).

No. 3072.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Hillsborough.

May 2, 1939.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Hillsborough County; Lorimer, Judge.

Actions on the case by Ruth E. Blanchette for injuries, and by her husband, Arthur J. Blanchette, for consequential loss, against the New England Telephone & Telegraph Company. From an order transferring the cases to Grafton county, plaintiffs bring exceptions.

Exceptions overruled.

Two actions on the case, commenced by writs dated August 20, 1938, returnable to the Superior Court for Hillsborough County. The plaintiff Ruth E. Blanchette seeks to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been received on October 4, 1934, through the negligent management of the defendant's premises in Manchester. Her husband, Arthur J. Blanchette, seeks to recover for the consequential loss occasioned him by reason of the accident. Both plaintiffs are residents of Plymouth in Grafton County and the defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of New York and doing business in Manchester in Hillsborough County. Service of the writs was made in accordance with the provisions of P.L. c. 231, § 1, relating to the service of process on foreign corporations.

The defendant filed pleas seeking abatement of the writs on the ground that the actions had been brought in the wrong county. The plaintiffs demurred. At the hearing on the demurrers it was agreed that the defendant "is a foreign corporation legally doing business in Manchester." At the conclusion of the hearing the Court overruled the demurrers and ordered the cases transferred to Grafton County. The plaintiffs' bill of exceptions was allowed by Lorimer, J.

Robert W. Upton, of Concord, for plaintiffs.

Demond, Sulloway, Piper & Jones, of Concord (Carl C. Jones, of Concord), for defendant.

MARBLE, Justice.

The plaintiffs' contention that the pleas are bad in form need not be considered. The material facts were established by agreement and the Presiding Justice correctly understood the question intended to be raised. Treating the pleas, with the defendant's acquiescence, as essentially motions to transfer the cases to the county in which the plaintiffs reside and holding as a matter of law that the actions should have been instituted there, he ordered the requisite change of venue. This procedure was entirely proper. P.L. c. 334, § 8; Berry v. Osborn, 28 N.H. 279; Brooks v. Howard, 58 N.H. 190; Bartlett v. Lee, 60 N.H. 168; Wheeler, etc, Co. v. Whitcomb, 62 N.H. 411; Tucker v. Lake, 67 N. H. 193, 29 A. 406; Whitcher v. Fair Association, 77 N.H. 405, 406,92 A. 735; Langdell v. Eastern Basket & Veneer Company, 78 N.H. 243, 244, 99 A. 90.

The actions are transitory, and "Transitory actions, in which any one of the parties is an inhabitant of the state, shall be brought in the county where some one of them resides. If no one of the parties is an inhabitant of the state the action may be brought in any county." P.L. c. 328, § 1. "The word 'inhabitant' may mean a resident or person dwelling or having his home in any city, town or place." P.L. c. 2, § 6.

As applied to corporations the adjectives "foreign" and "nonresident" are usually regarded as synonymous. 27 Columbia Law Rev. 12, 13, note. A corporation has its residence and domicil in the state in which it is incorporated, and if it extends its activities to another jurisdiction it "is in the same position as any non-resident who sends his agents into a State to do business for him." Beale, Foreign...