D'Amours v. Hills
| Decision Date | 06 March 1951 |
| Citation | 79 A.2d 348,96 N.H. 498 |
| Parties | D'AMOURS v. HILLS et al. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Ernest R. D'Amours, Machester, pro se.
Wyman, Starr, Booth, Wadleigh & Langdell and Wadleigh, all of Manchester, for appellees.
In State v. Kinne, 41 N.H. 238, it was decided that the State is not bound by a statute which bars any of its prerogatives, rights, titles or interests, unless the statute by express words includes the State in its provisions. Accordingly, it was held that the State was not liable for costs either in civil or criminal proceedings. Following this opinion the Legislature provided that in civil actions in which the State is plaintiff, if the defendant prevails, he may recover costs against the county where the judgment is rendered. R.L. c. 397, § 12.
R.L. c. 365, § 3 does not expressly include the State. It is therefore held that the Director of the Register of Charitable Trusts was under no obligation to furnish a bond in order to perfect his appeal. However the appellees would be entitled under said section 12 of c. 397 of the R.L. to recover any costs for which judgment may be entered against the county under said section 12.
'Even when statutes do not expressly exempt the state, it is the generally accepted rule of law that a state is not within the contemplation of statutes requiring appeal bonds unless specifically named * * *.' 4 C.J.S., Appeal and Error, § 517, page 980. This statement is under the heading: 'The state or its officers, acting in their official capacity, are not ordinarily required to furnish an appeal bond.' It is supported by Walker v. Turner, 1938, 22 Tenn.App. 280, 283, 122 S.W.2d 804; San Francisco Law & Collection Co. v. State, 141 Cal. 354, 357, 74 P. 1047; State of Florida v. Rushing, 17 Fla. 223, 225. See also, dicta in Holmes v. City of Mattoon, 111 Ill. 27, 29, and in McClay v. City of Lincoln, 32 Neb. 412, 422, 49 N.W. 282. A similar statement that there is an implied exception in favor of the State is found in 3 Am.Jur. 175.
The appellees argue that the State is not a party and that therefore the above stated principle of exemption cannot apply. It is unnecessary to decide the abstract question of whether the State is or is not a party to these proceedings, for the principle extends to and includes the officers of the State acting in their official capacity and within the authority conferred upon them.
In Bow v. Plummer, 79 N.H. 23, 104 A. 35, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Manchester v. Manchester Teachers Guild
...v. Grafton County, 97 N.H. 32, 79 A.2d 630, as well as its immunity from suit, Moore v. Dailey, 97 N.H. 278, 86 A.2d 342: D'Amours v. Hills, 96 N.H. 498, 79 A.2d 348, the underlying basis for the policy against strikes by public employees is the doctrine that governmental functions may not ......
-
Public Service Co. of N.H. v. State
...costs and interest unless the statute provides for it expressly or by reasonable implication. State v. Kinne, 41 N.H. 238; D'Amours v. Hills, 96 N.H. 498, 79 A.2d 348. The extent to which the State is immune from costs and interest is a legislative question and the court is not free to waiv......
-
State v. Wilson
...court to permit $52 for actual costs of transcripts. Hayes v. State, 109 N.H. 353, 356, 252 .a.2d 431, 434 (1969); D'Amours v. Hills, 96 N.H. 498, 499, 79 A.2d 348, 349 (1951). The case is remanded to the superior court for a determination of what portion of the $680 charge for expert witne......
-
Dover Housing Authority v. Feeney
...for it expressly or by reasonable implication.' Public Service Co. v. State, 102 N.H. 54, 149 A.2d 874 (1959); accord, D'Amours v. Hills, 96 N.H. 498, 79 A.2d 348 (1951); Holte v. Rondeau, 105 N.H. 304, 306, 199 A.2d 100, 101-02 (1964); N. H. Water Resources Board v. Pera, 108 N.H. 18, 226 ......