Davis v. Cent. N.H. Power Co. of Me.
| Decision Date | 02 March 1920 |
| Docket Number | No. 1618.,1618. |
| Parties | DAVIS v. CENTRAL NEW HAMPSHIRE POWER CO. OF MAINE. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Transferred from Superior Court, Merrimack County; Marble, Judge.
Bill for discovery by Eugene Davis against the Central New Hampshire Power Company of Maine. Transferred from the superior court on defendant's exception to an order for discovery. Exception overruled.
Bill for 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. Thd 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.
Robert W. Upton, of Concord, for plaintiff.
Joseph Madden, of Keene, and A. V. D. Piper, of Brattleboro, Vt., for defendant.
The defendant has furnished no brief. The record shows but two possible objections to the orders which are now open for consideration. These are that the defendant is a foreign corporation and that the books and documeuts 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, 77 Am. Dec. 732; 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.
Exceptions overruled. All concurred.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gutbier v. Hannaford Bros. Co.
...id. Following our decision in LaCoss , discovery was first attempted by a bill of discovery in the form of a motion, see Davis v. Company, 79 N.H. 377, 109 A. 263 (1920), and later by the modern motion for discovery, see Ingram v. Railroad, 89 N.H. 277, 197 A. 822 (1938). See Wiebusch, supr......
-
State v. Cote
...Co., 93 N.H. 354, 41 A.2d 924. Since the inspection was necessary for the plaintiff to prepare its case (Davis v. Central New Hampshire Power Company, 79 N.H. 377, 109 A. 263) and was granted under the supervision and control of a master with authority to determine materiality of records in......
-
Therrien v. Public Service Co.
...96 N.H. 17, 69 A.2d 4. The circumstance that the documents are beyond the jurisdiction presents no obstacle, Davis v. Central New Hampshire Power Company, 79 N.H. 377, 109 A. 263, and the mere fact that they may not be admissible in evidence does not preclude the order. See Staargaard v. Pu......
-
Ingram v. Boston & Maine R. R.
...to the discovery of documentary evidence. 1 Pomeroy, Eq.Jur., 4th Ed., § 205, p. 310. In the case of Davis v. Central New Hampshire Power Company, 79 N.H. 377, 109 A. 263, the trial court expressly found that the plaintiff was unable properly to prepare his case without an opportunity to in......