Harris v. Rounsevel

61 N.H. 250
CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire
DecidedDecember 5, 1881
StatusPublished

This text of 61 N.H. 250 (Harris v. Rounsevel) 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
Harris v. Rounsevel, 61 N.H. 250 (N.H. 1881).

Opinion

Dob, C. J.

Sending the sacks for the wool was a preparation made by the plaintiffs for completing the purchase. Tlie preparation was not beneficial to the defendant, was not a service for the payment of which his promise can be implied from the facts stated, and was not one of the statutory conditions that would give validity to the contract of sale. G. L., e. 220, s. 16; C. A. Association v. B. & M. Railroad, 59 N. H. 312, 314. Notice may generally be waived. Lyman v. Littleton, 50 N. 42. In legal proceedings, a party may waive an objection by not presenting it seasonably. State v. Richmond, 26 N. H. 232, 247; Boyce v. Railroad, 43 N. H. 627. The defendant presented his defence in court at his first opportunity. The legislature intended that such a contract should not be'valid, and that its invalidity should not be waived by such oral statements as were made in this case.] j

Case discharged.

Stanley, J., did not sit: the others concurred.

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

Related

Cocheco Aqueduct Ass'n v. Boston & Maine R. R.
59 N.H. 312 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1879)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
61 N.H. 250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-rounsevel-nh-1881.