32:T4e1,{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"Legislation","name":"Gobin v. Travelers Insurance, 185 A. 1","datePublished":"1936-05-05","legislationDate":"1936-05-05","citation":"Gobin v. Travelers Insurance, 185 A. 1 (N.H. 1936)","countryOfOrigin":"USA","jurisdiction":"Supreme Court of New Hampshire","description":"Read the full text of Gobin v. Travelers Insurance (Gobin v. Travelers Insurance, 185 A. 1 (N.H. 1936)). This legal opinion, filed in 1936-05-05, from the Supreme Court of New Hampshire discusses important legal matters. Access this case and related legal documents on Midpage, an AI-powered legal research platform.","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://app.midpage.ai/document/gobin-v-travelers-insurance--3550015"},"author":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Midpage"},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Midpage"},"url":"https://app.midpage.ai/document/gobin-v-travelers-insurance--3550015","isPartOf":{"@type":"WebSite","name":"Midpage","url":"https://app.midpage.ai"},"inLanguage":"en","keywords":"legal, opinion, document, research, midpage, Gobin v. Travelers Insurance, Supreme Court of New Hampshire, Gobin v. Travelers Insurance, 185 A. 1 (N.H. 1936)","isAccessibleForFree":true,"isFamilyFriendly":true}34:T4fb, Per Curiam.

The defendant’s contention that service of the writ in the present action was void merely because it was not made upon *169 the insurance commissioner is untenable. There is nothing in the language of any special statutory provision relating to foreign insurance companies (or in Laws 1927, c. 60) which has the necessary effect of repealing the general legislation applicable to service of process on foreign corporations. See P. L., c. 231, s. 9; Dinnin v. Hutchins, 75 N. H. 470. Such special provisions are cumulative and do not exclude other modes of service. 9 Fletcher, Cyc. Corp., p. 10356 and cases cited; 5 L. R. A. (n. s.) 298, note.

The order of the court that the case be “continued for further notice” is set aside. P. L., c. 331, s. 8. As to the remainder of the order

Exception overruled.

Branch, J., did not sit.