Martin v. Batchelder
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Replevin, for a horse. Trial by the court. The plaintiff’s evidence tended to show that he delivered the horse to the defendant Herman, May 28, 1895, under an oral agreement made prior to May 1, by which Herman was to keep the horse a year for the use of it. Herman used it awhile and then caused it to be pastured, and afterward to be kept by the defendant Charles. The defendants claimed a lien upon the horse for its keeping.
Read the full summary
Replevin, for a horse. Trial by the court. The plaintiff’s evidence tended to show that he delivered the horse to the defendant Herman, May 28, 1895, under an oral agreement made prior to May 1, by which Herman was to keep the horse a year for the use of it. Herman used it awhile and then caused it to be pastured, and afterward to be kept by the defendant Charles. The defendants claimed a lien upon the horse for its keeping. There was a finding in favor of the plaintiff, subject to the defendants’ exception.
1Opinion of the CourtChase, J.
As the exception was general and no brief has been furnished, the error which the defendants intended to allege by the exception is a matter of conjecture. If it was that the agreement set up by the plaintiff was within the statute of frauds because it was not to be performed within one year from the time it was made (P. S., c. 215, s. 2), the exception must be overruled. “ If by its terms, or by reasonable construction, the contract can be fully performed within a year, although it can only be done by the occurrence of some contingency by no means likely to happen,— such as the death of some…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Ives v. Manchester Subaru, Inc.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1985
- Cox v. PinkhamSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1921
- Collision Communications, Inc. v. P Nokia Solutions and Networks OYDistrict Court, D. New Hampshire · 2025
- Collision Communications, Inc. v. Nokia CorporationDistrict Court, D. New Hampshire · 2025