164 A. 765 | N.H. | 1933
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 *175
is conceded that the earlier conclusion upon this subject (Poti v. Company,
The short answer to this claim is that there is no evidence of a purpose to restrict the application of the statute in the manner proposed. The statutes of this state have long recognized the privilege, if not the right, of non-residents to come into our courts. P. L., c. 328, s. 1; Bishop v. Company,
The statute merely provides a new method of serving process — of getting the defendant into court. If she had been found within the state and there served with process, jurisdiction over her would have been obtained. By making use of our highways the defendant agreed that service made in the manner here adopted should "be of the same legal force and validity as if served on him personally." P. L., c. 100, s. 32.
It is therefore unnecessary to consider whether the state could provide in such a statute that it should be for the benefit of citizens of this state only. See Paine v. Drew,
Exceptions overruled.
All concurred. *176