Eastman v. Maine Central Railroad

46 A. 54, 70 N.H. 240
Supreme Court of New Hampshire·Decided December 5, 1899·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Blodgett, C. J.

Extended consideration of this case is unnecessary. The contract between the parties was not contrary to law or public policy; the plaintiff made it voluntarily and .understandingly; and the responsibility for its termination rests solely with himself. There is no rule better settled or more just in itself than that the parties who voluntarily and understandingly enter into such contracts must be governed by their terms, and are subject to the legal consequences of their violation. Having intentionally violated the express conditions of his contract, the plaintiff’s mileage book justly became forfeited in accordance with those conditions, and for the resulting pecuniary loss to .him there is nobody to blame but himself. In such a case, the law affords no relief. A party cannot maintain an action founded upon his own dishonesty and fraud.

Judgment for the defendants.

All concurred.

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

Eastman v. Maine Central Railroad, 46 A. 54, 70 N.H. 240 (N.H. 1899).

46 A. 54 (Eastman v. Maine Central Railroad) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mason v. Seaboard Air Line Railway Co.
159 N.C. 183 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1912)
Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railroad v. Evans
82 N.E. 773 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1907)