Rowell v. Claggett

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Rowell v. Claggett

41 A. 173, 69 N.H. 201

Supreme Court of New Hampshire·Decided June 5, 1897·Published

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.

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

Pincite

41 A. 173 (Rowell v. Claggett) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.