Bryson v. Haley

88 A. 1006, 68 N.H. 337
Supreme Court of New Hampshire·Decided June 5, 1895·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Blodgett, J.

The plaintiff is not precluded from a recovery of the value of his labor and materials upon the bar and, the room containing it by his knowledge that the defendant intended to use them for an unlawful purpose. The case is not distinguishable in principle from Delavina v. Hill, 65 N. H. 94. See, in addition, Tracy v. Talmage, 14 N. H. 162,— 67 Am. Dec. 132, and note; Tyler v. Carlisle, 79 Me. 210,— 1 Am. St. Rep. 301, and note; Michael v. Bacon, 49 Mo. 474,— 8 Am. Rep. 138, and note; Webber v. Donnelly, 33 Mich. 469; Hubbard v. Moore, 24 La. An., 591, — 13 Am. Rep. 128; Mahood v. Tealza, 26 La. An. 108,— 21 Am. Rep. 546.

Exception overruled.

.¡Chase, J., did not sit: the others concurred.

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

Bryson v. Haley, 88 A. 1006, 68 N.H. 337 (N.H. 1895).

88 A. 1006 (Bryson v. Haley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Main v. Berlin Dry Goods Co.
77 A. 483 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1910)