History
  • No items yet
midpage
Gage v. Gannett
11 Mass. 217
Mass.
1814
Check Treatment
Per Curiam.

Had the condition of this bond been for the payment of interest after the months had expired, the penalty would have been forfeited, notwithstanding the plaintiff’s acceptance of the principal. But here it is but an incident in the nature of damages ; and the principal having been paid and accepted, the penalty is saved, (a)

Plaintiff nonsuit.

See Bond vs. Cutler, 10 Mass. Rep. 419. — Harris vs. Clapp, 1 Mass. Rep. 308. — Pitts vs. Tilden, 2 Mass. Rep. 118. — Farquhar vs. Morrison, 7 D. & E. 124.— M’ Gill vs. Bank U. S. 12 Wheat. 511. — Page vs. Newman, 9 B. & C. 381. — Foster & Al. vs. Weston, 6 Bing. 709. — Hogan vs. Page, 1 B. & P. 337. — Higgins vs. Sargent, 2 B. & C. 348. — Sneed & Al. vs. Wistar & Al. 8 Wheat. 690__Dawes vs. Winship, 5 Pick. 97. — Parker vs. Thomson, 3 Pick. 429—Newson’s Admr. vs. Douglas, 7 H. & J. 417.

Case Details

Case Name: Gage v. Gannett
Court Name: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Date Published: May 15, 1814
Citation: 11 Mass. 217
Court Abbreviation: Mass.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.