Legal Opinion

Manchester Supply Co. v. Dearborn

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided January 2, 1940No. 3081PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtWoodbury, J.

After contrasting English law with the continental systems, Professor Mechem in his work on agency writes that “it is unquestionably the general rule of our law that an undisclosed principal, when subsequently discovered, may, at the election of the other party, if exercised within a reasonable time, be held upon all simple non-negotiable contracts made in his behalf by his duly authorized agent, although the contract was originally made with the agent in entire ignorance of the principal.” 2 Mechem, Agency (2d ed.), s. 1731. To the same effect see 1 Williston, Contracts (Rev. ed.), s. 286; 3…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Gagne v. New Haven Road Construction Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1934
  2. Hilliard v. Upper Coos RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1913
  3. Platts v. AuclairSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1919
  4. Albany v. AbbottSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1881
  5. Bryant v. WellsSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1875

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. New Hampshire Bituminous Co. v. TAB Aviation, Inc.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1989

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

Powered by the Exa API