Whitman v. Anglum

103 A. 114, 92 Conn. 392, 1918 Conn. LEXIS 44
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
DecidedMarch 12, 1918
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 103 A. 114 (Whitman v. Anglum) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Whitman v. Anglum, 103 A. 114, 92 Conn. 392, 1918 Conn. LEXIS 44 (Colo. 1918).

Opinion

Shumway, J.

This was an absolute and unconditional undertaking by the defendant to sell and deliver milk daily, of the specified quality and amount. The defendant’s claim is that he was excused from the performance of the contract by reason of the quarantine, which made it illegal for him to leave his premises and carry away any products of his farm or any articles that might carry infection. The quarantine order did not make it illegal to deliver milk, nor make it illegal for the defendant to procure its delivery. This much is conceded.

But the defendant contends that the clause in the contract, to wit, “The said Whitman is to come and get the milk at No. 1 Wawarme Avenue,” is an essential part of the contract, and as delivery was to be made at the place named, therefore delivery under the terms of the contract was illegal. There is nothing in the record to show that the defendant could not perform his contract. While it may be true that the plaintiff could not enter the defendant’s house or go upon other parts of the premises which were under quarantine, it does not follow that the contract could not be performed substantially if not literally. The contract was not to deliver milk produced on the premises. All that can be said is that the defendant was under a temporary disability to perform his contract. He is not, however, released from the obligations of his contract because it was difficult or impossible to perform them, so long as the performance was not illegal. School District No. 1 v. Dauchy, 25 Conn. 530; Worthington v. Charter Oak Life Ins. Co., 41 Conn. 372, 401.

There is no error.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

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

Related

Schick v. Schick
17 Conn. Super. Ct. 232 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1951)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
103 A. 114, 92 Conn. 392, 1918 Conn. LEXIS 44, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whitman-v-anglum-conn-1918.