Main v. Berlin Dry Goods Co.
This text of 77 A. 483 (Main v. Berlin Dry Goods Co.) 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.
Opinion
It is not necessary to consider whether the scheme the defendant proposed to carry out was prohibited by the statute against lotteries (P. S., e. 270, ss. 1-5) or by the trading-stamp act (Laws 1905, c. 83), or whether the latter act can be sustained. Conceding that it was the purpose of the defendant, known to the plaintiff, to procure the articles sold for use in violation of some valid statute of the state, the plaintiff is still entitled to recover on his contract so long as he himself took no part in the prohibited transaction. The case is not distinguishable frojn Bryson v. Haley, 68 N. H. 337.
Judgment for the plaintiff for $228.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
77 A. 483, 75 N.H. 511, 1910 N.H. LEXIS 35, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/main-v-berlin-dry-goods-co-nh-1910.