Williams v. Hastings

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Williams v. Hastings

59 N.H. 373

DecidedDecember 5, 1879

StatusPublished

This text of 59 N.H. 373 (Williams v. Hastings) 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

Williams v. Hastings, 59 N.H. 373 (N.H. 1879).

Pincite

Opinion

Clark, J.

At the time of making the contract to move the defendant’s goods, the plaintiff contemplated a part performance of it on Sunday, and the subsequent performance was in part on that day. The removal of the goods was not a work of necessity or mercy, and therefore the contract, being in violation of Gen. St., c. 255, s. 3, was illegal. The contract being entire, the plaintiff cannot recover for the labor performed on Saturday and Monday. Kidder v. Blake, 45 N. H; 530; Bixby v. Moor, 51 N. H. 402.

Judgment for the defendant.

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

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

Clark, J.

At the time of making the contract to move the defendant’s goods, the plaintiff contemplated a part performance of it on Sunday, and the subsequent performance was in part on that day. The removal of the goods was not a work of necessity or mercy, and therefore the contract, being in violation of Gen. St., c. 255, s. 3, was illegal. The contract being entire, the plaintiff cannot recover for the labor performed on Saturday and Monday. Kidder v. Blake, 45 N. H; 530; Bixby v. Moor, 51 N. H. 402.

Judgment for the defendant.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 N.H. 373, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-hastings-nh-1879.