Main v. Berlin Dry Goods Co.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Main v. Berlin Dry Goods Co.

77 A. 483, 75 N.H. 511, 1910 N.H. LEXIS 35

Supreme Court of New Hampshire·Decided July 1, 1910·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Peaslee, J.

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.

All concurred.

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

Peaslee, J.

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.

All concurred.

Main v. Berlin Dry Goods Co., 77 A. 483, 75 N.H. 511, 1910 N.H. LEXIS 35 (N.H. 1910).

Pincite

77 A. 483 (Main v. Berlin Dry Goods Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related