Moskwa v. Nassikas

133 A. 321, 82 N.H. 559, 1926 N.H. LEXIS 61
Supreme Court of New Hampshire·Decided May 4, 1926·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

There can be no recovery for the purchase price of goods which the vendor could not legally sell. Albertson v. Shenton, 78 N. H. 216; Dunbar v. Locke, 62 N. H. 442; Bliss v. Brainard, 41 N. H. 256; Lewis v. Welch, 14 N. H. 294; Roby v. West, 4 N. H. 285. Adulterated milk could not legally be sold. Laws 1917, c. 156, s. 1.

*560 At least two cans of the milk sold by the plaintiff to the defendants, i. e., those from which the samples were taken, were watered. For the price of these two cans, amounting to one dollar, there can be no recovery. A verdict for the plaintiff for the balance of his claim would be sustainable upon the reported facts.

Case discharged.

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

Moskwa v. Nassikas, 133 A. 321, 82 N.H. 559, 1926 N.H. LEXIS 61 (N.H. 1926).

133 A. 321 (Moskwa v. Nassikas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

M. A. Albertson & Co. v. Shenton
98 A. 516 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1916)
Dunbar & Co. v. Locke
62 N.H. 442 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1883)