Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

16 N.H. 259

Richards v. Whittle

Superior Court of New Hampshire

Decided December 15, 1844

Superior Court of New Hampshire · decided 1844-12-15

Assumpsit. The declaration alleged that the defendants on the 10th day of June 1889, in consideration that the plaintiff had on that day assigned to them a lease of a certain tavern-stand in Goffstown made by one Eliphalet Richards, Jr., to the plaintiff, bearing date May 1, 1838, by an instrument in writing under their hands, promised the plaintiff to save him harmless in all respects from his covenants in said lease during the remainder of the term, and to pay all rents…

Relies on Fish v. Dana

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1844-12-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently September 1978

3 state decisions

1018441850186018701880189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Gilchrist, J.

¶1It may not be necessary to determine the exact terms and conditions of the defendants’ liability upon their covenant to indemnify the plaintiff and save him harmless in all respects from his covenants in the lease named in the case. They have expressly agreed to pay all the rents that the plaintiff' had agreed to pay, and to dischai’ge all his liabilities. This they have not done, and the moment that they failed to pay such rents falling due, this action lay against them at the plaintiff’s suit. Fish v. Dana, 10 Mass. 46; Orofoot v. Moore, 4 Vermont 209.

¶2The measure of damages is the sum that the defendants agreed to pay, with interest. That the plaintiff has been subjected to the inconvenience and expense of a suit in consequence of the defendants’ omission to keep his engagement to pay this money, can not be shown to increase his claim for damages.

¶3Upon the covenant or agreement to indemnify, the plaintiff can not recover the costs, because they have been occasioned by other parties, and have not grown out of *261the covenants in the case. The attaching creditors who defended are bound to see them paid.

¶4There must be judgment on the verdict for $196.95.

/16/nh/259 · .json · Public domain