Hatch v. Hooper
| Decision Date | 04 February 1958 |
| Parties | Linwood HATCH v. Caroline E. HOOPER. Rose HATCH v. Caroline E. HOOPER. Linwood HATCH v. Philip R. HOOPER. Rose HATCH v. Philip R. HOOPER. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Fisher, Parsons & Moran, Harold Moran, Dover, for plaintiffs.
S. Wesley Powell, Hampton Falls, Charles F. Hartnett and Maurice J. Murphy, Jr., Dover, specially for defendants.
The defendants contest the jurisdiction of the Court upon the ground that the plaintiffs failed to comply with the statutory provision that following service on the Motor Vehicle Commissioner, 'notice' of the service of process and a 'copy of the process' shall be 'forthwith' sent by registered mail to the defendant. RSA 264:2. Their contention is that the notice sent by the plaintiffs' attorney was insufficient because it failed to inform the defendants that the statutory procedure 'confer[s] jurisdiction * * * which will result in a default and judgment in personam against him if he fails to file an appearance,' and because the notice and copy were not sent 'forthwith' as provided by the statute. In consequence, it is argued, entertainment of jurisdiction would deprive the defendants of due process of law, particularly in the actions against the minor.
The constitutionality of RSA ch. 264 was affirmed in Poti v. New England Road Machinery Company, 83 N.H. 232, 140 A. 587, and is not here in question. See Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U.S. 352, 47 S.Ct. 632, 71 L.Ed. 1091; Garon v. Poirier, 86 N.H. 174, 164 A. 765. However, provision for notice to the defendant of the substituted service provided for by the statute is essential to due process (Wuchter v. Pizzutti, 276 U.S. 13, 48 S.Ct. 259, 72 L.Ed. 446; White v. March, 147 Me. 63, 83 A.2d 296), and it is established that the notice must be such as to make it reasonably probable that the defendant will be apprised of the pending action and afforded opportunity to appear. Wuchter v. Pizzutti, supra, 276 U.S. 24, 25, 48 S.Ct. 259, 72 L.Ed. 446; Restatement, Judgments, s. 23, c. See Sampson v. Conlon, 100 N.H. 70 119 A.2d 707; Olberding v. Illinois Central R. Co., 346 U.S. 338, 341, 74 S.Ct. 83, 98 L.Ed. 39; Shushereba v. Ames, 255 N.Y. 490, 175 N.E. 187; Brammall v. LaRose, 105 Vt. 345, 165 A. 916.
The defendants do not claim a failure to receive the notices but rather that they were not calculated to notify them of the consequences of default in appearance. The notice in each case was as follows:
This was sufficient compliance with the statute. It called attention to the pending action and to the applicable statute. It enclosed a copy of the writ summoning the defendant to appear at the Superior Court for Rockingham County on the first Tuesday of December, 1956 and bearing the return of service 'on the within named defendant * * * by leaving in the office of Frederick N. Clarke, Commissioner of Motor Vehicles.'
We find in the statute no express or implied requirement that the plaintiff shall furnish the defendant with advice concerning the legal consequences of his failure to appear. This has never been thought appropriate in the commencement of actions against residents, and cannot be considered a requirement of procedural due process. On the contrary, the duty of ascertaining the legal requirements of the forum in which they were sued rested upon the respective defendants. Barbieri v. Pandiscio, 116 Conn. 48, 50, 163 A. 469.
The circumstance that one of the defendants was a minor did not alter the essential requirements. Since the defendant Philip was sufficiently mature to operate a motor vehicle, he could properly be presumed competent to deal intelligently with legal process received in the mail. 'Had it been possible at the moment when the putative liability arose to set up a piepowder court pro hac vice, the state would have had power to adjudicate the liability then and there * * *.' Kilpatrick v. Texas & P. Ry. Co., 2 Cir., 166 F.2d 788, 791. The defendant's minority, of itself, would not operate to defeat jurisdiction under the statute. Gesell v. Wells, 299 App.Div. 11, 240 N.Y.S. 628, affirmed 254 N.Y. 604, 173 N.E. 885; Boulay v. Pontikes, D.C., 93 F.Supp. 586; Silver Swan Liquor Corp. v. Adams, 43 Cal.App.2d Supp. 851, 110 P.2d 1097.
If in future proceedings no guardian appears on his behalf, a guardian ad litem may be and should be appointed. RSA 462:1. Moore v. Roxbury, 85 N.H. 394, 159 A. 357; Hollis v. Tilton, 90 N.H. 119, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tarter v. Insco
...Cal-Farm Ins. Co. v. Oliver, 78 Nev. 479, 375 P.2d 857.'New Hampshire: Bolduc v. Richards, 101 N.H. 303, 142 A.2d 156; Hatch v. Hooper, 101 N.H. 214, 138 A.2d 671.'New York: Fuller v. Stuart, 3 Misc.2d 456, 457, 153 N.Y.S.2d 188.'Oklahoma: Moore v. Dunham, 10 Cir., 240 F.2d 198; St. Louis &......
-
Smith v. Forty Million, Inc.
...now requires a return receipt. N.R.S. 14.070(2)) New Hampshire: Bolduc v. Richards (1958), 101 N.H. 303, 142 A.2d 156; Hatch v. Hooper (1958), 101 N.H. 214, 138 A.2d 671. See N.H.R.S.A. Service on Motor Vehicle Commissioner. Notice of such service and a copy of the process are to be 'forthw......
-
Daigle v. Leavitt
...Cal-Farm Ins. Co. v. Oliver, 78 Nev. 479, 375 P.2d 857. New Hampshire: Bolduc v. Richards, 101 N.H. 303, 142 A.2d 156; Hatch v. Hooper, 101 N.H. 214, 138 A.2d 671. New York: Fuller v. Stuart, 3 Misc.2d 456, 457, 153 N.Y.S.2d 188. Oklahoma: Moore v. Dunham, 10 Cir., 240 F.2d 198; St. Louis &......
-
Hoyt v. Nick, 6191
...agreed statement of facts and the Superior Court (Leahy, C.J.) denied the motion subject to the defendant's exceptions. Hatch v. Hooper, 101 N.H. 214, 138 A.2d 671 (1958), held that notice of service of process upon the director of motor vehicles mailed to the nonresident defendant fourteen......