Legal Opinion

Robert G. Watkins & Son, Inc. v. Carrig

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided July 15, 1941No. 3259PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAllen, C. J.

When the written contract was entered into, no understanding existed between the parties that no rock would be found in the excavating. The plaintiff’s manager made no inquiry or investigation to find out the character of the ground below the surface, no claim is made that the defendant misled him, and the contract contains no reservations for unexpected conditions. It provides that “all material” shall be removed from the site, and its term that the plaintiff is “to excavate” is unqualified. In this situation a defence of mutual mistake is not available. A space of ground to be excavated,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Cavanaugh v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1911
  2. Frye v. HubbellSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1907
  3. Leavitt v. DoverSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1891
  4. C. C. King Co. v. AldrichSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1923
  5. Wiggin v. HodgdonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1884

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Bogoni v. FriedlanderAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
  2. Brodeur v. Claremont School DistrictDistrict Court, D. New Hampshire · 2009
  3. Guaraldi v. Trans-Lease GroupSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1992
  4. Owens v. City of BartlettSupreme Court of Kansas · 1974
  5. Brodeur v. Claremont School DistrictDistrict Court, D. New Hampshire · 2009

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API