Clarksville Land Co. v. Harriman
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, to recover the price of driving logs. The defendant claims to recoup damages arising from the non-performance of the contract. Facts found by a referee.
1Opinion of the CourtWallace, J.
In the spring of 1881, the defendant had a large quantity of logs on the branches of Hall. stream, a tributary of the Connecticut river, ready to be driven down the stream. At this time the plaintiffs entered into an agreement with him to drive the logs down the stream to the Connecticut river. Although it is not found in express terms that the contract was to be performed that spring, yet such appears to have been the understanding of the parties. Shortly afterward and before the plaintiffs had a reasonable time in which to complete their contract, notwithstanding the fact that they used due…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Dexter v. . NortonNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
- Wells v. CalnanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
- Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. HoytSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- The TornadoSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
3Cited by8 opinions
- Merl F. Thomas Sons, Inc. v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1964
- Tulsa Opera House Co. v. MitchellSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1933
- Alvino v. CarraccioSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1960
- H. Hackfeld Co., Ltd. v. CastleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
- Dow v. BryantWyoming Supreme Court · 1922
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.