Gage v. Gannett
This text of 11 Mass. 217 (Gage v. Gannett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Had the condition of this bond been for the payment of interest after the months had expired, the penalty would have been forfeited, notwithstanding the plaintiff’s acceptance of the principal. But here it is but an incident in the nature of damages ; and the principal having been paid and accepted, the penalty is saved,
Plaintiff nonsuit.
See Bond vs. Cutler, 10 Mass. Rep. 419. — Harris vs. Clapp, 1 Mass. Rep. 308. — Pitts vs. Tilden, 2 Mass. Rep. 118. — Farquhar vs. Morrison, 7 D. & E. 124.— M’ Gill vs. Bank U. S. 12 Wheat. 511. — Page vs. Newman, 9 B. & C. 381. — Foster & Al. vs. Weston, 6 Bing. 709. — Hogan vs. Page, 1 B. & P. 337. — Higgins vs. Sargent, 2 B. & C. 348. — Sneed & Al. vs. Wistar & Al. 8 Wheat. 690__Dawes vs. Winship, 5 Pick. 97. — Parker vs. Thomson, 3 Pick. 429—Newson’s Admr. vs. Douglas, 7 H. & J. 417.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
11 Mass. 217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gage-v-gannett-mass-1814.