Costoras v. Noel
| Decision Date | 09 July 1957 |
| Citation | 101 N.H. 71,133 A.2d 495 |
| Parties | Harry COSTORAS v. Harold B. NOEL. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
McCabe & Fisher and Harold D. Moran, Dover, for plaintiff.
Burns, Calderwood, Bryant & Hinchey, Dover, Robert E. Hinchey, Dover, for defendant.
At common-law there was no action for wrongful death nor did tort actions for personnel injuries survive. Burke v. Burnham, 97 N.H. 203, 84 A.2d 918; Dubois v. Pouliot, 97 N.H. 78, 81 A.2d 305; Hinman v. Director, 79 N.H. 518, 112 A. 382. Therefore any right of action which survived this injured plaintiff's death did so solely by virtue of RSA Ch. 556 and predecessor statutes and only to the extent specified by them. Costoras v. Noel, 100 N.H. 81, 82, 119 A.2d 705. The statute which creates the right also limits its existence. Kostoras v. Hines, 80 N.H. 500, 119 A. 332.
When there is an action pending at the death of the person injured this action is made to survive by RSA 556:9, but no other action can be instituted after his death by the personal representative. Ham v. Maine-New Hampshire Interstate Bridge Authority, 92 N.H. 268, 275, 30 A.2d 1; Burke v. Burnham, supra, 97 N.H. 205, 84 A.2d 921. The only action the executor is admitted to prosecute is the pending action. Piper v. Boston & M. Railroad, 75 N.H. 435, 75 A. 1041. Therefore any amendment offered by the executor to become party plaintiff and to allege the wrongful death of decedent must necessarily be an amendment of the action pending at the death of the injured party. Ham v. Maine-New Hampshire Interstate Bridge Authority, supra. However that action survives only in accord with the limitations imposed on it by the statute which creates it. Kostoras v. Hines, supra. It has become abated and forever barred by the failure of the executor to appear and assume its prosecution before the end of the second term after the decease of the injured party. It is therefore incapable of amendment. The plaintiff's motion should be denied and the defendant's granted.
Judgment for defendant.
WHEELER, J., took no part in the decision; the others concurred.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Belkner v. Preston, 6869
...clause of the fourteenth amendment, its application to the facts of this case would bar plaintiff's action. Costoras v. Noel, 101 N.H. 71, 72, 133 A.2d 495, 497 (1957). The first superior court term in Hillsborough County after Royer's demise began September 12, 1972, and ended January 1, 1......
-
Heath v. Cleveland
...72 N.H. 164, 55 A. 891; Desmarais v. Company, 79 N.H. 195, 107 A. 491; Kostoras v. Hines, 80 N.H. 500, 119 A. 332. See Costoras v. Noel, 101 N.H. 71, 133 A.2d 495. Hence unless the provisions of RSA 556:28 may be considered to qualify the provisions of RSA 556:9-11 which thus limit the caus......
-
State v. Preston
...date of the amendment is barred by the prohibition in N.H.Const. pt. I, art. 23 against retrospective laws. See, e. g., Costoras v. Noel, 101 N.H. 71, 133 A.2d 495 (1957); Kostoras v. Hines, 80 N.H. 500, 119 A. 332 (1922); and Poff v. Telephone Company, 72 N.H. 164, 55 A. 891 We do not agre......
-
Fireman's Fund Am. Ins. Companies v. Webber
...be maintained at this late date. See RSA 567:7 (supp.); Sullivan v. Indian Head Bank, 99 N.H. 262, 109 A.2d 572 (1954); Costoras v. Noel, 101 N.H. 71, 133 A.2d 495 (1957). The record before us requires dismissal of the petition by reason of the unexplained neglect to bring it within the per......