Opinion ID: 1942966
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Luv Pharmacy, Inc. (hereinafter Luv)

Text: Luv owns a store in Manchester. Its manager sold a copy of the July 1976 issue of Penthouse magazine to a Manchester police officer. Luv was indicted for the sale; a copy of the indictment and a notice to appear was hand-delivered to the manager. The indictment alleges that Luv Pharmacy, Inc.... did knowingly sell obscene material, in that said defendant sold ... the July 1976 issue of Penthouse Magazine... contrary to the form of the Statute.... On January 7, 1977, Luv filed a plea in abatement, moving that the case be dismissed for lack of criminal jurisdiction. After an evidentiary hearing, the court denied the plea. Luv argues that RSA 300:11 governs service of process in the instant proceeding. This statute provides methods of serving process in any suit, action or proceeding, ... [and of serving] any notice or demand required or permitted by law to be served on a foreign corporation.... RSA 300:11(a) and (b) regulate service of process on registered agents of foreign corporations. (Under RSA 300:3(b), any foreign corporation registered to do business in New Hampshire must maintain a registered agent in this State.) If a foreign corporation transacting business in this State fails to appoint or maintain a registered agent upon whom legal process can be served, then the secretary of state is authorized to accept service for the corporation. RSA 300:11(c). Luv has no registered agent in New Hampshire, but no substituted service of process was made on the secretary of state. Defendant submits that this failure to make substituted service as per RSA 300:11(c) deprives the court of in personam jurisdiction. We disagree. Defendant misreads the statute. By its very terms, RSA 300:11 permits service of process by means other than those it specifies. The first sentence of RSA 300:11 provides that: Services of process ... may be made on [a foreign] corporation as otherwise provided by law.... RSA 300:13 reiterates that: The method of service provided by this chapter is not exclusive, and service on [foreign] corporations may be made in any other manner provided by law. [1] One statute providing an alternative method of service is RSA 510:14. In re Tech Consolidated, Inc., 329 F. Supp. 27, 31 (D.N.H. 1971); see LaBonte v. American Mercury Magazine, Inc., 98 N.H. 163, 168, 96 A.2d 200, 203 (1953); Taylor v. Klenzade Products, Inc., 97 N.H. 517, 522, 92 A.2d 910, 914 (1952). Service under RSA 510:14 may be made upon any agent, overseer or other person having the care of any of the property or charge of any of the business of the corporation. As we noted above, service in the instant case was accomplished by hand-delivering a copy of the indictment and a notice to appear to the manager of Luv's Manchester store. The manager himself agreed at the hearing below that he was the employee of Luv's that has the greatest authority of any employee of Luv's in New Hampshire. We hold that service on him satisfied RSA 510:14 and thereby met the service-of-notice requirements of in personam jurisdiction. Luv has neither briefed nor argued any other exception to the denial of its plea in abatement. We therefore affirm the denial.