Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Emery v. Hovey

4 Citing cases

  1. New York v. Rooney

    347 A.2d 172 (N.H. 1975)

    Examination of the record before us indicates that the New York judgment was a valid in personam judgment entitled to full faith and credit in our courts. Sampson v. Conlon, 100 N.H. 358, 126 A.2d 250 (1956); Moore v. Moore, 96 N.H. 130, 71 A.2d 409 (1950); Emery v. Hovey, 84 N.H. 499, 153 A. 322 (1931). The contract was entered into in New York and entirely performed in New York. By the time the New York action was commenced, the defendant was a resident of Kensington, New Hampshire. It is not disputed that he was served personally in New Hampshire in that action, in compliance with the New York long-arm statute, by a representative of the Rockingham County sheriff's office.

  2. Parsons c Lumber Co. v. Southwick

    139 A.2d 883 (N.H. 1958)   Cited 3 times

    KENISON, C. J. This is a transitory action (Emery v. Hovey, 84 N.H. 499) on promissory notes payable in Massachusetts brought by a New York corporation against the defendants, one of whom is a resident of this state, and the other a resident of Massachusetts. A court may acquire jurisdiction over an individual by personal service upon him within the state even though he may be here only temporarily. Restatement, Judgments, s. 15, comment a. If the individual is personally served with process within the state it is immaterial that he is domiciled elsewhere or that immediately after the service of process he leaves the state.

  3. Thistle v. Halstead

    95 N.H. 87 (N.H. 1948)   Cited 15 times

    The jurisdiction of the courts of this state to determine the validity of the plaintiff's claim to the extent that the defendant's property within this jurisdiction may be subjected to its payment is not disputed by the defendant. The action is transitory (See Emery v. Hovey, 84 N.H. 499), and the motion to dismiss does not allege lack of jurisdiction. The bill of exceptions recites attachment of property of the defendant in New Hampshire, and the defendant has conceded upon oral argument that the issue is not one of jurisdiction.

  4. Lovejoy v. Ashworth

    94 N.H. 8 (N.H. 1946)   Cited 18 times
    In Lovejoy v. Ashworth, 94 N.H. 8, 45 A.2d 218 (1946), in a suit on a foreign judgment on a note, the court held that a claim of equitable setoff based on deceit was not barred even though it arose out of the same transaction as the judgment sued on because it was a different cause of action and the issue had not in fact been determined in the former suit.

    Accordingly it was correctly ruled that the judgment obtained cannot be impeached collaterally. Emery v. Hovey, 84 N.H. 499, and cases cited. However, it appears from the judgment roll that the issue raised by the defendant's answer and plea of recoupment, namely, that he was induced to give said note by the deceit of the plaintiff in interest, was not raised by the pleadings.