Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

3 N.H. 79

Danforth v. Dewey

Superior Court of New Hampshire

Decided August 15, 1824

Superior Court of New Hampshire · decided 1824-08-15

for two was for two another count for Assumpsit. One count was upon an account ploughs, of the,value of $24. Another count ploughs, sold and delivered. There was money. had and received.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1824-08-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently December 1892

3 state decisions

1018241830184018501860187018801890decided

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 →

By the court.

¶1In this case, the plaintiff purchased of the defendant two ploughs ; and, in an adjustment of accounts between the parties, the value of the ploughs was allowed to the defendant; yet he has refused to deliver the ploughs, and has converted them to his own use. It is objected, by the:defendant, that this action cannot be maintained upon these facts. But we think otherwise. It seems to us, that when the defendant refused to deliver the ploughs, the plaintiff had a right to consider the contract as rescinded, and to recover back the price he had paid for the ploughs. 5 John. 85, Gillet vs. Maynard.—12 John. 274, Raymond vs. Barnard.

¶2*80And it seems to us, that this plaintiff may recover upon his count, for money had and received, the price of the ploughs, Í* is not necessary, in order to support that count, that the defendant should have received money. It is enough, that he received money’s worth. 2 N. H. Rep. 333, Willie vs. Green.

¶3Judgment on the verdict.

/3/nh/79 · .json · Public domain