Webster v. Buss
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Deist, on a bond from tbe defendant to tbe plaintiff. Tbe condition is, “that whereas I have sold to said Webster my team and teaming property and have agreed in consideration of the sum paid by him therefor to wit tlie sum of eleven hundred dollars that I will entirely relinquish to him the teaming business in the vicinity of Marlborough aforesaid meaning over and on the whole route heretofore occupied and run by me Now if I the said Buss shall well and truly so relinquish…
Read the full summary
Deist, on a bond from tbe defendant to tbe plaintiff. Tbe condition is, “that whereas I have sold to said Webster my team and teaming property and have agreed in consideration of the sum paid by him therefor to wit tlie sum of eleven hundred dollars that I will entirely relinquish to him the teaming business in the vicinity of Marlborough aforesaid meaning over and on the whole route heretofore occupied and run by me Now if I the said Buss shall well and truly so relinquish to said Webster said route and in no way directly or indirectly interfere with or cause the same to be interfered with…
1Opinion of the CourtStanley, J.
The defendant, in consideration of §1,100 paid to him by the plaintiff, sold to the plaintiff. his teaming property, and agreed to entirely relinquish to the plaintiff his teaming business in the vicinity of Marlborough over the route. theretofore occupied by him, and in no way, directly or indirectly, to interfere 'therewith or cause it to be interfered with. The agreement was limited as to place, but unlimited as to time. It was made upon an adequate consideration, and was valid. This doctrine is established both in England and in this country. Davis v. Mason, 5 T. R. 118; Bunn v. Guy, 4…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Hedge, Elliott & Co. v. LoweSupreme Court of Iowa · 1877
- Chappel v. BrockwayNew York Supreme Court · 1839
- Perkins v. LymanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1813
- Butler v. BurlesonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1844
- California Steam Navigation Co. v. WrightCalifornia Supreme Court · 1857
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Wawak Co. v. KaiserCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1937
- Saddlery Hardware Manufacturing Co. v. Hillsborough MillsSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1894