Potter v. Lefebvre

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided June 7, 1949

Supreme Court of New Hampshire · decided 1949-06-07

Relies on Connecticut Valley Lumber Co. v. Maine Central Railroad

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1949-06-07

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently April 1990

2 district · 1 state decisions

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 →

Per Curiam.

¶1 The ruling of the Trial Court was correct. The law upon this point is correctly stated in the Restatement, Conflict of Laws, s. 603, as follows: “If action is barred by the statute of limitations of the forum, no action can be maintained though action is not barred in the state where the cause of action arose.” See also, Connecticut &c. Co. v. Railroad, 78 N. H. 553, 555. The order, therefore, is

¶2 Exceptions overruled.

Download

Copy

Embed on your site

Hover to preview · click to copy the code

Search Wikipedia →

Case posture

Posture: ASSUMPSIT to recover the balance due upon a promissory note originally for $7,000 signed by the defendant upon May 20, 1928, in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, in the presence of an attesting witness. The defendant filed a special plea that said action was barred by the statute of limitations of this state, as more than six years had expired from the due date of the note or any subsequent payment thereon. General Laws of Massachusetts, c. 260, s. 1, provides as follows: The following actions shall be commenced only within twenty years next after the cause of action accrues: . . . Third, Actions upon promissory notes signed in the presence of an attesting witness, if brought by the original payee or by his executor or administrator. The Trial Court made the following findings and ruling: The Court finds that more than six years had expired from the due date of said note or any subsequent payments thereof and rules as a matter of law that the lex fori determines the time within which this cause of action shall be enforced. The action is barred by the statute of limitations of this State, and ordered judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff's bill of exceptions was allowed by Wheeler, J.

Source: CourtListener

Court

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Parallel citations

66 A.2d 643