Gage v. Gannett

11 Mass. 217
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided May 15, 1814·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

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,

Footnotes

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

Gage v. Gannett, 11 Mass. 217 (Mass. 1814).

11 Mass. 217 (Gage v. Gannett) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Morton v. Godfrey L. Cabot, Inc.
63 S.E.2d 861 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1949)
Davis v. Harrington
35 N.E. 771 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1894)
Warner v. Bacon
74 Mass. 397 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1857)
Trovillo v. Tilford
6 Watts 468 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1837)
Hogins v. Arnold
32 Mass. 259 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1834)