Bennett v. Brown

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Bennett v. Brown

109 A. 201, 79 N.H. 347, 1920 N.H. LEXIS 8

Supreme Court of New Hampshire·Decided January 6, 1920·Published

Opinion

Young, J.

The mere fact the plaintiff went to work for the corporation when the defendants ceased to have work for him to do, did not terminate the contract he made with them as a matter of law; and as there was evidence tending to prove that he had an understanding with them that going to work for the corporation should not affect his rights under the contract,' and that he was discharged without cause, the case should have been submitted to the jury.

Exception sustained.

All concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Young, J.

The mere fact the plaintiff went to work for the corporation when the defendants ceased to have work for him to do, did not terminate the contract he made with them as a matter of law; and as there was evidence tending to prove that he had an understanding with them that going to work for the corporation should not affect his rights under the contract,' and that he was discharged without cause, the case should have been submitted to the jury.

Exception sustained.

All concurred.

Bennett v. Brown, 109 A. 201, 79 N.H. 347, 1920 N.H. LEXIS 8 (N.H. 1920).

Pincite

109 A. 201 (Bennett v. Brown) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.