Alpaugh v. Wood
Supreme Court of New Jersey
On error to the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs, Alpaugh and Magowau, brought suit in the Supreme Court against the defendants, Wood and Barlow, upon the following contract: “Agreement made this seventh day of May, A. D. eighteen hundred and eighty-three, between Spencer M. Alpaugh and Frank A. Magowan, of the city of Trenton, New Jersey, party of the first part, and William Wood, of the township of Lawrence, and James Barlow, of the city of Trenton, in the county of Mercer…
Read the full summary
On error to the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs, Alpaugh and Magowau, brought suit in the Supreme Court against the defendants, Wood and Barlow, upon the following contract: “Agreement made this seventh day of May, A. D. eighteen hundred and eighty-three, between Spencer M. Alpaugh and Frank A. Magowan, of the city of Trenton, New Jersey, party of the first part, and William Wood, of the township of Lawrence, and James Barlow, of the city of Trenton, in the county of Mercer and State of New Jersey, parties of the ■second part. Witnesseth, that whereas, the said party of the first part own and…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Dixon, J.
The scope accorded by the trial judge to the contract in this case was too limited. The mention, in the document, of an existing pottery, was designed to indicate the place where the business provided for was to be conducted, and, in a general way, the business itself, as being that of a pottery, but there is lacking any intimation that the business was to be confined to such products as had previously been manufactured. There are several reasons for thinking that the contract has a wider sweep.
First. It is reasonable to assume that, in making…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. First Heights Bank, Fsb Pulte Diversified Companies, Inc. Pulte CorporationCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2000
- Harrison v. PugaCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1971
- Anderson v. Stayton State BankOregon Supreme Court · 1916
- Turley v. ThomasNevada Supreme Court · 1909
- Chang v. Biosuccess Biotech Co.District Court, C.D. California · 2014
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.