Cited by

Statutes of limitations govern the period within which actions must be brought, Lakeman v. LaFrance, 102 N.H. 300, 303 (1959), and are “designed to expedite the orderly administration of justice,” Torr v. Dover, 107 N.H. 501, 503 (1967).

Lakeman v. LaFrance, 102 N.H. 300, 304 (1959) (parties disputed whether defendant entitled to jury trial to resolve statute of limitations issue); Smith v. Manchester Management Corp., 117 N.H. 361, 362 (1977) (parties disputed whether defendant entitled to jury trial to resolve mismanagement of partnership affairs issue subsumed within equitable clai

Lakeman v. LaFrance, 102 N.H. 300, 304, 156 A.2d 123, 126-27 (1959) (no constitutional right to jury trial on claim that statute of limitations was tolled by fraudulent concealment because claim is equitable in nature).

The doctrine of fraudulent concealment is an equitable ground to justify the tolling of the statute of limitations based on the wrongful conduct of the defendant.

Belcher v. Paine, 136 N.H. 137, 149, 612 A.2d 1318, 1326 (1992); Kantor v. The Norwood Group, 127 N.H. 831, 834, 508 A.2d 1078, 1081 (1986); Lakeman v. LaFrance, 102 N.H. 300, 305, 156 A.2d 123, 127 (1959).

The trial court also ruled that the “fraudulent concealment” doctrine articulated by this court in Lakeman v. LaFrance, 102 N.H. 300, 156 A.2d 123 (1959), provides additional common law precedent for tolling the statute of limitations in the case at bar.

Like most States, New Hampshire recognizes the elimination of stale or fraudulent claims as the principal purpose of statutes of limitations.

For the reasons that follow, our answer to this question is no. This question involves a proposed extension of the so-called discovery rule first enunciated by this court in the context of fraudulent concealment of tortious behavior by a wrongdoer, see Lakeman v. LaFrance, 102 N.H. 300, 303, 156 A.2d 123, 126 (1959), and later applied in the case of a foreign object left in a patient’s body, Shillady, 114 N.H. at 324, 320 A.2d at 639.

at 340, 53 A.2d at 432, or to purely equitable proceedings, Lakeman v. LaFrance, 102 N.H. 300, 304, 156 A.2d 123, 126 (1959).

Statutes of limitation “are designed to expedite the orderly administration of justice,” Torr v. Dover, 107 N.H. 501, 503, 226 A.2d 96, 98 (1967), and to eliminate stale claims, Lakeman v. LaFrance, 102 N.H. 300, 303, 156 A.2d 123, 126 (1959).

Lakeman v. LaFrance, 102 N.H. 300, 304-05, 156 A.2d 123, 127 (1959); Kelley, supra at 954.

Lakeman v. LaFrance, 102 N.H. 300, 303, 156 A.2d 123, 126 (1959); Bowman v, Sanborn, 18 N.H. 205, 209 (1846).

“Whether an action is one in tort or in contract ‘is not determined by the form of the action but by its substance.’” Guerin v. N.H. Catholic Charities, 120 N.H. 501, 505, 418 A.2d 224, 227 (1980) (quoting Lakeman v. LaFrance, 102 N.H. 300, 305, 156 A.2d 123, 127 (1959)).

“Whether an action is one in tort or in contract ‘is not determined by the form of [the] action but by its substance.’” Guerin, 120 N.H. at 505, 418 A.2d at 227 (quoting Lakeman v. LaFrance, 102 N.H. 300, 305, 156 A.2d 123, 127 (1959)).

Cloutier v. Kasheta, 105 N.H. 262, 264-65, 197 A.2d 627, 628-29 (1964); Lakeman v. LaFrance, 102 N.H. 300, 305, 156 A.2d 123, 127 (1959).

Conduct of a nature giving rise to an equitable estoppel may be sufficient to toll the running of such a statute.

The rule in this State is that a statute of limitations is a matter of procedure, see Gordon v. Gordon, 118 N.H. 356, 379 A.2d 810 (1978), “[t]he interpretation arid application [of which] is traditionally within the province of the court in cases of this nature.” Shillady v. Elliot Community Hospital, 114 N.H. 321, 325, 320 A.2d 637, 639 (1974); cf. Lakeman v. Lafrance, 102 N.H. 300, 156 *848 A.2d 123 (1959).

“ ‘The nature of the case and of the relief sought must be looked to for the settlement of the constitutional question.’ ” Lakeman v. LaFrance, 102 N.H. 300, 304, 156 A.2d 120, 126 (1959).

In a case in which the defendant fraudulently concealed facts necessary to put the injured person on notice of his claim, we held that the cause of action accrued not when the injury occurred, but rather when the plaintiff discovered or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered the concealed facts.

As her suit was not instituted until October 29, 1973, and the agreed facts do not come within the recognized exception of fraudulent concealment by a defendant, the motion to dismiss should have been granted.

Lakeman v. LaFrance, 102 N.H. 300, 305, 156 A.2d 123, 127 (1959); see Roberts v. Richard & Sons, Inc., 113 N.H. 154, 304 A.2d 364 (1973).

Hamlin v. Olivier, 77 N.H. 523, 93 A. 966 (1915); Lakeman v. LaFrance, 102 N.H. 300, 156 A.2d 123 (1959).

Curtice v. Dixon, 73 N.H. 393, 62 A. 492 (1905); Dion v. Cheshire Mills, 92 N.H. 414, 32 A.2d 605 (1943); Lakeman v. LaFrance, 102 N.H. 300, 156 A.2d 123 (1959).

Lakeman v. LaFrance, 102 N. H. 300, 305, 156 A.2d 123; Cloutier v. Kasheta, 105 N. H. 262, 197 A.2d 627.