Garon v. Poirier

No question is made as to the validity of the statute (P. L., c. 100, ss. 32,33) under which the service was made. It is conceded that the earlier conclusion upon this subject (Poti v. Company, 83 N. H. 232) is sound. The sole ground of objection is that the legislature did not intend that a non-resident plaintiff should in this way bring a non-resident defendant into our courts, there to litigate the issue of liability for an accident happening upon a local highway.

The short answer to this claim is that there is no evidence of a purpose to restrict the application of the statute in the…