Legal Opinion

Frothingham v. Seymour

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided January 4, 1877PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Contract to recover $200 and damages for breach of the following agreement, signed by the plaintiff and the defendant: “ These articles of agreement, made this twentieth day of September, A, D. 1870, by and between George E. Frothingham, M. D., of the first part, and Christopher Seymour of the second part, witnesseth, In primis, That the said parties mutually covenant and agree that they will practise and pursue together the profession and occupation of physician and surgeon…

Read the full summary

Contract to recover $200 and damages for breach of the following agreement, signed by the plaintiff and the defendant: “ These articles of agreement, made this twentieth day of September, A, D. 1870, by and between George E. Frothingham, M. D., of the first part, and Christopher Seymour of the second part, witnesseth, In primis, That the said parties mutually covenant and agree that they will practise and pursue together the profession and occupation of physician and surgeon in the town of Hinsdale, Mass., and that they will divide equally between them the gross receipts and income which may…

1Opinion of the CourtAmes, J.

The only question raised by this bill of exceptions is whether the instruction requested by the defendant ought to have been given. We are bound to presume that in all other respects the rulings of the presiding judge were correct.

It appears from the facts reported, that immediately after the signing of the contract the plaintiff took his departure for Michigan, and that he had not returned at the date of the defendant’s letter to him. By the terms of the contract, he had a right to *413be so absent for the term of six months, and his absence had not exceeded that period. Until his return, he had…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Drake v. WhiteMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1875
  2. Frothingham v. SeymourMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1875

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Consolidated Realty Co. v. Richmond Hotel & Building Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1934

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API