Dix v. Flanders
Superior Court of New Hampshire
THIS was an action of assumpsit, brought by the plaintiff, as administratrix of Timothy Dix, jun. upon a contract in writing as follows :— Boston, October 25, 1808. — I, the subscriber, of Warner, have received of T. Dix, jun. manager of Dixville road lottery, ten tickets in the second class of said lottery, for the purpose of selling, which tickets I promise to return to him, or one of the other managers, three days before the day appointed by the managers for drawing said…
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of assumpsit, brought by the plaintiff, as administratrix of Timothy Dix, jun. upon a contract in writing as follows :— Boston, October 25, 1808. — I, the subscriber, of Warner, have received of T. Dix, jun. manager of Dixville road lottery, ten tickets in the second class of said lottery, for the purpose of selling, which tickets I promise to return to him, or one of the other managers, three days before the day appointed by the managers for drawing said class, or pay him, or his order, for the same at five dollars each on demand— Commissions two per cent. — Ezra Flanders.…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Richardson, C. J.
— In cases of this kind, it is never necessary to give notice, unless it was expressly or impliedly a part of the contract, this notice should be given. When there is an express stipulation as to notice, there can be no difficulty : but it is often not a little embarrassing to determine, wheu such a stipulation is to be inferred from the terms of the contract. We are however inclined to think, that the true rule is this: when the extent of the contract is not precisely known, but is to depend upon facts more particularly within the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Pres't, &c. Middlesex Bank v. ButmanSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1848