Rowell v. Claggett

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Rowell v. Claggett

41 A. 173, 69 N.H. 201

DecidedJune 5, 1897

StatusPublished

This text of 41 A. 173 (Rowell v. Claggett) 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

Rowell v. Claggett, 41 A. 173, 69 N.H. 201 (N.H. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

Pike, J.

The agreement between Sherwood and the plaintiff did not constitute a sale of the property. It was a mere executory agreement for a pledge with authority to sell. As the plaintiff failed to obtain possession of the property, the pledge was not completed, and the transaction had no effect as against the defendant’s attachment. Colby v. Cressey, 5 N. H. 237; Brown v. Wiggin, 16 N. H. 312; Wolcott v. Keith, 22 N. H. 196, 209.

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

Pike, J.

The agreement between Sherwood and the plaintiff did not constitute a sale of the property. It was a mere executory agreement for a pledge with authority to sell. As the plaintiff failed to obtain possession of the property, the pledge was not completed, and the transaction had no effect as against the defendant’s attachment. Colby v. Cressey, 5 N. H. 237; Brown v. Wiggin, 16 N. H. 312; Wolcott v. Keith, 22 N. H. 196, 209.

Exception overruled.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A. 173, 69 N.H. 201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rowell-v-claggett-nh-1897.