Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

65 N.H. 91

18 A 87

Weeks v. Harriman

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided December 5, 1888

Supreme Court of New Hampshire · decided 1888-12-05

<p>A judgment of a sister state, based upon the statute of limitations alone, is a bar to the maintenance of an action for the same cause here.</p> <p>Assumpsit. Plea, a former adjudication of the subject-matter of the action by the Vermont county court for the county of Essex. A referee found that in 1882 this defendant commenced an action of assumpsit in the Essex county court against this plaintiff; that this plaintiff filed therein, by way of set-off, two items which involved the same matter for which he seeks to recover here, and that at the September term, 1883, judgment was rendered for this defendant on the ground of the statute of limitations alone.</p>

Relies on Sanderson v. Peabody

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1888-12-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently May 2013

1 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions

2018881890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Allen, J.

¶1 The Vermont judgment pleaded here in bar of the maintenance of the action was rendered by a court having jurisdiction of the parties and cause of action, and in the regular course of procedure upon a plea of the statute of limitations in bar of the plaintiff’s right of action. Such a judgment, conclusive against the plaintiff’s right of action in Vermont, where it was rendered, is conclusive everywhere when pleaded in a suit between the same parties and on the same cause of action. The fact that the judgment was rendered upon the plea of the statute of limitations alone does not make it any less conclusive in character. The plaintiff’s claim was merged in the judgment by which its further prosecution is barred. Sanderson v. Peabody, 58 N. H. 116, 119.

¶2 Judgment for the defendant.

Smith, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
/65/nh/91 · .json · Public domain