Britton v. Turner
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit for work and labour, performed by the plaintiff, in the service of the defendant, from March 9th, 1831, to December 27, 1831. The declaration contained the common counts, and among them a count in quantum meruit, for the labor, averring it to be worth one hundred dollars. At the trial in the C. C. Pleas, the plaintiff proved the performance of the labor as set forth in the declaration.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit for work and labour, performed by the plaintiff, in the service of the defendant, from March 9th, 1831, to December 27, 1831. The declaration contained the common counts, and among them a count in quantum meruit, for the labor, averring it to be worth one hundred dollars. At the trial in the C. C. Pleas, the plaintiff proved the performance of the labor as set forth in the declaration. The defence was that it was performed under a special contract — -that the plaintiff agreed to work one year, from some time in March, 1831, to March 1832, and that the defendant was to pay him for…
1Opinion of the CourtParker, J.
It may be assumed, that the labor performed by the plaintiff, and for which he seeks to recover a compensation in this action, was commenced under a special contract to labor for the defendant the term of one year/for the sum of one hundred and twenty dollars, and that the *486plaintiff has labored but a portion of that time, and has voluntarily failed to complete the entire contract.
It is clear, then, that he is not entitled to recover upon the contract itself, because the service, which was to entitle him to the sum agreed upon, has never been performed.
But. the question arises, can the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Dubois v. Delaware & Hudson Canal Co.New York Supreme Court · 1830
- M'Millan v. VanderlipNew York Supreme Court · 1815
- Faxon v. MansfieldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1806
- Jennings v. CampNew York Supreme Court · 1816
- Jackson ex dem. Carman v. RoseveltNew York Supreme Court · 1816
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Smith v. StateSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1978
- R. J. Berke & Co. v. J. P. Griffin, Inc.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1976
- Coe v. SmithIndiana Supreme Court · 1853
- Amtorg Trading Corp. v. Miehle Printing Press & Mfg. Co. (Of Delaware)Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1953
- Lancellotti v. ThomasSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.