Legal Opinion

Morin v. People's Wet Wash Laundry Co.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided October 6, 1931PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.

The plaintiff offered evidence that the defendant’s manager had instructed its drivers to use forcible methods to the extent of criminal conduct in competing with other laundries to obtain business. The evidence was rightly excluded. It did not appear that the defendant expressly authorized or ratified such instructions so as to make them its own. And the manager had no implied authority to give directions, or even permission, for conduct that anyone would know was wrongful. Favor v. Philbrick, 7 N. H. 326, 339, 340. “No right can be founded upon a transaction which involves a violation of…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Piper v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1910
  2. Richard v. Amoskeag Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1920
  3. Castonguay v. Acme Knitting MacHine & Needle Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1927
  4. Dearborn v. FullerSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1919
  5. M. A. Albertson & Co. v. ShentonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1916

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Aversa v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1996
  2. Georgia Power Co. v. ShippSupreme Court of Georgia · 1943
  3. Plotkin v. Northland Transportation Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1939
  4. Seminole Point Hospital Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.District Court, D. New Hampshire · 1987
  5. Birmingham Electric Co. v. HawkinsAlabama Court of Appeals · 1953

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API