History
  • No items yet
midpage
Williams v. Hastings
59 N.H. 373
| N.H. | 1879
|
Check Treatment

At the time of making the contract to move the defendant's goods, the plaintiff contemplated a part performance of it on Sunday, and the subsequent performance was in part on that day. The removal of the goods was not a work of necessity or mercy, and therefore the contract, being in violation of Gen. St., c. 255, s. 3, was illegal. The contract being entire, the plaintiff cannot recover for the labor performed on Saturday and Monday. Kidder v. Blake, 45 N. H; 630; Bixby v. Moor, 51 N.H. 402.

Judgment for the defendant.

ALLEN, J., did not sit: the others concurred. *Page 374

Case Details

Case Name: Williams v. Hastings
Court Name: Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Date Published: Dec 5, 1879
Citation: 59 N.H. 373
Court Abbreviation: N.H.
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.