Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

62 N.H. 617

Foster v. Bartlett

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided June 5, 1883

Supreme Court of New Hampshire · decided 1883-06-05

Assumpsit, on the defendant’s written agreement, in consideration of $1,000 received from the plaintiff, “ to pay said sum of ten hundred dollars to Daniel K. Foster, of Pittsfield, in said county, upon the said Daniel K. Foster’s giving a receipt in full settlement of certain suits at law now pending in court” in favor of Daniel K. Foster and against the plaintiff. The writ contains also a count for money had and received.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently December 1892

1 state decisions

Relies on Luey v. Bundy · King v. Hutchins · Drew v. Claggett

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1883-06-05

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

*618 Carpenter, J.

¶1 The plaintiff had his election to bring an action on the contract to recover damages for the breach of it, or to treat it as rescinded and recover the money as received to his use. Stevens v. Cushing, 1 N. H. 18; Drew v. Claggett, 39 N. H. 431, 433. The defendant’s payment of $200 affords no objection to the plaintiff’s pursuing the last named course. The defendant is not injured by the rescisión. Notwithstanding his partial performance of his agreement, he is restored to the situation he occupied before the contract was made. Luey v. Bundy, 9 N. H. 298, 302, 303; King v. Hutchins, 28 N. H. 561, 573.

¶2 Judgment on the verdict.

Stanley. J., did not sit: the others concurred.
/62/nh/617 · .json · Public domain