Bourn v. Duff
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
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
- Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. MarshallSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
3Cited by2 opinions
- Wilshire Ins. Co. v. Transit Cas. Co.California Court of Appeal · 1967
- Tuttle v. PalmerSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1977