Legal Opinion

Hatch v. Hooper

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided February 4, 1958No. 4614PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDuncan, J.

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…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Wuchter v. PizzuttiSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
  2. Olberding v. Illinois Central RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1953
  3. Hartley v. VitielloSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1931
  4. Shushereba v. AmesNew York Court of Appeals · 1931
  5. Webb Packing Co. v. HarmonSuperior Court of Delaware · 1937

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Tarter v. InscoWyoming Supreme Court · 1976
  2. Ervin v. BelandCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1968
  3. Moss v. Director, Patuxent InstitutionCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1976
  4. Hoyt v. NickSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1973
  5. Zeigler v. MastersonSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1971

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API