Gunnison v. Abbott

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Gunnison v. Abbott

61 A. 589, 73 N.H. 347, 1905 N.H. LEXIS 51

DecidedJune 29, 1905

StatusPublished

This text of 61 A. 589 (Gunnison v. Abbott) 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

Gunnison v. Abbott, 61 A. 589, 73 N.H. 347, 1905 N.H. LEXIS 51 (N.H. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

Bingham, J.

Chellis is the plaintiff in interest, and the case will be considered as though he were the plaintiff of record. The general verdict in his favor includes a finding that be knew at the time he attached the horses on the writ against Daniels that Abbott had previously attached them as Daniels property, and that relying thereon he attached them and changed his position. Such a finding is not only not inconsistent with the special facts found in the case, but could reasonably be inferred from them. Under these circumstances, if Abbott were allowed to rescind the sale to Daniels and hold the' horses as his own Chellis would suffer a detriment, for he would be liable in damages as a tort-feasor. Farley v. Lincoln, 51 N. H. 577; Moody v. Drown, 58 N. H. 45; Thurston v. Blanchard, 22 Pick. 18. It follows that Abbott is es-topped to set up a right to rescind the sale because of Daniels’ fraud (Haynes v. Sanborn, 45 N. H. 429; Carpenter v. Cummings, 40 N. H. 158; Evans v. Warren, 122 Mass. 303), and that there should be judgment for the plaintiff.

Exception overruled.

All concurred.

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

Bingham, J.

Chellis is the plaintiff in interest, and the case will be considered as though he were the plaintiff of record. The general verdict in his favor includes a finding that be knew at the time he attached the horses on the writ against Daniels that Abbott had previously attached them as Daniels property, and that relying thereon he attached them and changed his position. Such a finding is not only not inconsistent with the special facts found in the case, but could reasonably be inferred from them. Under these circumstances, if Abbott were allowed to rescind the sale to Daniels and hold the' horses as his own Chellis would suffer a detriment, for he would be liable in damages as a tort-feasor. Farley v. Lincoln, 51 N. H. 577; Moody v. Drown, 58 N. H. 45; Thurston v. Blanchard, 22 Pick. 18. It follows that Abbott is es-topped to set up a right to rescind the sale because of Daniels’ fraud (Haynes v. Sanborn, 45 N. H. 429; Carpenter v. Cummings, 40 N. H. 158; Evans v. Warren, 122 Mass. 303), and that there should be judgment for the plaintiff.

Exception overruled.

All concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A. 589, 73 N.H. 347, 1905 N.H. LEXIS 51, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gunnison-v-abbott-nh-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack