Dodge v. Greeley

31 Me. 343
CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine
DecidedJuly 1, 1850
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 31 Me. 343 (Dodge v. Greeley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dodge v. Greeley, 31 Me. 343 (Me. 1850).

Opinion

Wells, J., orally.

The general principle is that, in a conditional contract, if there be but a partial performance by one party, the other may retract. The plaintiff failed as to his part, and cannot complain of the erasure. He had no right to be benefited by his own wrong.

There was nothing illegal in withholding the requested instructions. An agreement may, without direct- and specific terms, embrace all that the request contemplated. The right to erase might be implied from the nature of the transaction.

Whether the deposition was wrongfully admitted, need not be decided; because its contents had no tendency to prove the issue for the defendant. A party has no ground of complaint, if he has not been injured.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Related

Buskirk Bros. v. Peck
50 S.E. 432 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1905)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
31 Me. 343, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dodge-v-greeley-me-1850.