Page v. Hodgdon

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Page v. Hodgdon

63 N.H. 53

DecidedJune 5, 1884

StatusPublished

This text of 63 N.H. 53 (Page v. Hodgdon) 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

Page v. Hodgdon, 63 N.H. 53 (N.H. 1884).

Pincite

Opinion

Dob, C. J.

The agreement of the parties, dividing the fence for the season, included an implied stipulation that each should maintain the part accepted by him. By the common law of New Hampshire, established by common custom and understanding, the unrescinded, oral contract, executed by one party, bound the other. The statute of fences does not expressly prohibit a parol division for the season; and the construction of the statute, settled by long-usage, is, that it does not relieve the defendants from liability for the damage caused by the non-performance of their agreement.

Exception overruled.

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

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

Dob, C. J.

The agreement of the parties, dividing the fence for the season, included an implied stipulation that each should maintain the part accepted by him. By the common law of New Hampshire, established by common custom and understanding, the unrescinded, oral contract, executed by one party, bound the other. The statute of fences does not expressly prohibit a parol division for the season; and the construction of the statute, settled by long-usage, is, that it does not relieve the defendants from liability for the damage caused by the non-performance of their agreement.

Exception overruled.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 N.H. 53, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/page-v-hodgdon-nh-1884.