Legal Opinion

Tough v. Netsch

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided June 28, 1928PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBranch, J.

1. The defendant argues that the plaintiff should not have judgment in this case because of the rule that equity will not lend its aid to enforce either a penalty or a forfeiture or to divest an estate for breach of condition subsequent. Ricker v. Blanchard, 45 N. H. 39, 47; Smith v. Jewett, 40 N. H. 530, 534. It is unnecessary to inquire at this time whether the unqualified language used in these cases correctly states the law (see 21 C. J., Tit. Equity, s. 81), for the obvious answer to the defendant’s argument is that the plaintiff is not seeking equitable aid for this purpose. The action…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Noyes v. . AndersonNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
  2. Kann v. KingSupreme Court of the United States · 1907
  3. Joslyn v. OrindaSupreme Court of Vermont · 1881

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Harrington v. TrotmanDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2009
  2. Red Hill Outing Club v. HammondSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1998
  3. Parks v. Eames Realty Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1947
  4. Jussila v. YeackelWashington Supreme Court · 1937

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

Powered by the Exa API