Douglas v. Oldham

6 N.H. 150
Superior Court of New Hampshire·Decided July 15, 1833·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

By the court.' *

We have no doubt, that the nature, validity, construction, and effect, of the contract are to be [154] settled by the laws of Ohio. But the question now to be decided is, does covenant lie oil this instrument ? This question must be settled, not by the law of Ohio, but by our own law, and we think it very clear that, however it may be in Ohio, this paper cannot be considered here as a deed. There is nothing upon it which we can consider as a seal. Assumpsit, then, and not covenant, is the proper action, and there must be

Judgment for the defendant.

Footnotes

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

Douglas v. Oldham, 6 N.H. 150 (N.H. Super. Ct. 1833).

6 N.H. 150 (Douglas v. Oldham) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Burns Mortgage Co. v. Hardy
94 F.2d 477 (First Circuit, 1938)
Burns Mortgage Co. v. Hardy
19 F. Supp. 827 (D. New Hampshire, 1937)
Stevens v. Norris
30 N.H. 466 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1855)
Smith v. Godfrey
28 N.H. 379 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1854)
Hall v. Boardman
14 N.H. 38 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1843)
Bank of Orange County v. Colby
12 N.H. 520 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1842)