Legal Opinion

Bourn v. Duff

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided April 4, 1950No. 3887PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDuncan, J.

The defendant contends that his undertaking to make weekly payments to the plaintiff, reasonably construed, is to make such payments for a reasonable period only, because “it was the expectation of the parties that if the plaintiff survived ... he would be able to return to his former duties within a reasonable length of time.” The Trial Court ruled, however, that “the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the sum of $40 weekly out of the earnings of the business . . . [remaining after deduction of $90 per week salary of the defendant] until the plaintiff is able to return to work…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. MarshallSupreme Court of the United States · 1890

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Wilshire Ins. Co. v. Transit Cas. Co.California Court of Appeal · 1967
  2. Tuttle v. PalmerSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1977

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

Powered by the Exa API