Ingalls v. Burlingame
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, to recover for the publication of an advertisement in a newspaper. Tried by a referee, and transferred from the October term, 1900, of the supreme court by Parsons, J. July 26, 1896, one Andrews was the owner of the newspaper,, and before that date he began publishing the advertisement in question under a verbal contract with the defendant, by the terms-of which the publication was to be continued until forbidden by the defendant.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, to recover for the publication of an advertisement in a newspaper. Tried by a referee, and transferred from the October term, 1900, of the supreme court by Parsons, J. July 26, 1896, one Andrews was the owner of the newspaper,, and before that date he began publishing the advertisement in question under a verbal contract with the defendant, by the terms-of which the publication was to be continued until forbidden by the defendant. July 15, 1897, Andrews sold to the plaintiff his-publishing business, including his account against the defendant, the amount of which has. been paid…
1Opinion of the CourtWalker, J.
If the contract for future advertising was assignable, either at law or in equity, without notice to the defendant, his rights under the contract were' not changed by the plaintiff’s, purchase of the publishing business. Sanborn v. Little, 3 N. H. 539; Jordan v. Gillen, 44 N. H. 424, 427, 428; Grage v. Low, 59 N. H. 383, 385. One of his rights was that he might terminate the executory contract at any time by notice to Andrews, the other contracting party. About the time of the sale he notified Andrews, to discontinue the advertisement, in ignorance of the fact of the sale. The plaintiff had…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Burns v. MadiganSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1880
- Gage v. DowSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1879
3Cited by1 opinion
- Stavrelis v. ZachariasSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1919