Drew v. King

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Drew v. King

80 A. 642, 76 N.H. 184, 1911 N.H. LEXIS 181

DecidedJune 24, 1911

StatusPublished

This text of 80 A. 642 (Drew v. King) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Drew v. King, 80 A. 642, 76 N.H. 184, 1911 N.H. LEXIS 181 (N.H. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Bingham, J.

By the express terms of the contract of bailment, the defendants agreed that they had received for safe keeping a Reo touring car of the value of one thousand dollars, and that they *185 would return the same to the plaintiff upon demand, in as good condition as the same was then in. The case discloses no facts from which it could be concluded that they failed to comply with the terms of the contract. On the contrary, it appears that when the property was demanded they offered to return the car in as good condition as when received, and that the plaintiff declined to accept it. This was a compliance with, and not a breach of, the contract. Had they failed to comply with the demand, without legal excuse, they would have rendered themselves liable for the agreed value of the car, but in this they were not wanting. Whittredge v. Maxam, 68 N. H. 323, 324; Healey v. Hutchinson, 66 N. H. 316, 318; Scott v. Whittemore, 27 N. H. 309. The nonsuit was properly ordered.

Exception overruled.

All concurred.

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

Bingham, J.

By the express terms of the contract of bailment, the defendants agreed that they had received for safe keeping a Reo touring car of the value of one thousand dollars, and that they *185 would return the same to the plaintiff upon demand, in as good condition as the same was then in. The case discloses no facts from which it could be concluded that they failed to comply with the terms of the contract. On the contrary, it appears that when the property was demanded they offered to return the car in as good condition as when received, and that the plaintiff declined to accept it. This was a compliance with, and not a breach of, the contract. Had they failed to comply with the demand, without legal excuse, they would have rendered themselves liable for the agreed value of the car, but in this they were not wanting. Whittredge v. Maxam, 68 N. H. 323, 324; Healey v. Hutchinson, 66 N. H. 316, 318; Scott v. Whittemore, 27 N. H. 309. The nonsuit was properly ordered.

Exception overruled.

All concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 A. 642, 76 N.H. 184, 1911 N.H. LEXIS 181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/drew-v-king-nh-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack