Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

7 N.H. 454

Harris v. Stevens

Superior Court of New Hampshire

Decided July 15, 1835

Superior Court of New Hampshire · decided 1835-07-15

This ; was an. action for $300, money had and received by the defendant for the use of the plaintiff. The cause was tried upon the general issue at April term, 1835, and a verdict taken for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court upon the following case. On the 6th March, 1834, the defendant, being the owner of certain shares in the Croydon Turnpike Corporation, made and , delivered to, the plaintiff a written memorandum, as follows : “ March 6, 1834.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1835-07-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently May 1940

1 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

20183518401850186018701880189019001910192019301940decided

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 →

Richardson, C. J.,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court. We are of opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to retain the verdict.

¶2Shares- in corporations are not strictly speaking chattels, but are rather in the nature of choses in action. They may, however, be the subject of a contract to sell. Angel & Ames on Corporations, 316; 2 Bingham, 393; 2 Pickering, 243; 9 ditto, 202; 6 ditto, 324; 8 ditto, 90; 17 Mass. R. 240; 10 ditto, 476; 9 Vezey, 174; 3 Binney, 394.

¶3It is unnecessary to consider, whether any binding contract was made on the 6th March. For, if the memorandum amounts to nothing more than a mere proposal, still it was without question a proposal to convey to the plaintiff all the interest the defendant had in the shares when the proposal was made. And when the plaintiff on the 18th March accepted the proposal, and gave security for the price, according to the offer, he was by the terms of the bargain entitled to all the interest in the shares which the defendant had when the offer was first made : and the dividend which the defendant received after that offer must in equity and good conscience be considered as the money of the plaintiff.

¶4Judgment on the verdict.

/7/nh/454 · .json · Public domain