Blodgett v. Stone

60 N.H. 167
Supreme Court of New Hampshire·Decided June 5, 1880·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Clark, J.

The facts stated in the brief statement constituted no defence, and. it was properly rejected. The proceedings in the bill in equity ware immaterial. No decree was entered up. If the judge who heard the application for a temporary injunction denied it on the merits, it would not be a bar to a subsequent hearing on the bill, and it is no bar to this suit. The request for instructions, that the defendant was not liable unless his act caused actual damage to the plaintiff, was rightly refused. The plaintiff was entitled to a verdict for nominal damages upon proof of the infringement of his right, although no actual injury was shown. Tillotson v. Smith, 32 N. H. 90 ; Bassett v. Company, 28 N. H. 438; Woodman v. Tufts, 9 N. H. 88; Munroe v. Stickney, 48 Me. 462; Chaffee v. Pease, 10 Allen 537; Stowell v. Lincoln, 11 Gray 434.

Judgment on the verdict.

Smith, J., did not sit: the others concurred.

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

Blodgett v. Stone, 60 N.H. 167 (N.H. 1880).

60 N.H. 167 (Blodgett v. Stone) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Nichols Ex Rel. Estate of Nichols v. Estabrook
741 F. Supp. 325 (D. New Hampshire, 1989)
Pugliese v. Town of Northwood Planning Board
408 A.2d 113 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1979)