Kimball v. Bruce

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Kimball v. Bruce

58 N.H. 327

Supreme Court of New Hampshire·Decided June 5, 1878·Published

Opinion

Doe, C. J.

The defendant has made no effort, by brief or argument, to maintain his exception, and it is untenable. Carr v. Clough, 26 N. H. 280, 293, 294; Heath v. West, 28 N. H. 101, 110; Locke v. Smith, 41 N. H. 346, 353; Young v. Stevens, 48 N. H. 133, 137; Heath v. Stevens, 48 N. H. 251; 2 Kent Com. (12th ed.) 236, n. 1, 240; Benjamin on Sales, s. 27, n. If the chattels were necessaries, the plaintiff was not chargeable for more than their value.

Judgment on the verdict.

Bingham, J., did not sit.

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

Doe, C. J.

The defendant has made no effort, by brief or argument, to maintain his exception, and it is untenable. Carr v. Clough, 26 N. H. 280, 293, 294; Heath v. West, 28 N. H. 101, 110; Locke v. Smith, 41 N. H. 346, 353; Young v. Stevens, 48 N. H. 133, 137; Heath v. Stevens, 48 N. H. 251; 2 Kent Com. (12th ed.) 236, n. 1, 240; Benjamin on Sales, s. 27, n. If the chattels were necessaries, the plaintiff was not chargeable for more than their value.

Judgment on the verdict.

Bingham, J., did not sit.

Kimball v. Bruce, 58 N.H. 327 (N.H. 1878).

Pincite

58 N.H. 327 (Kimball v. Bruce) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.