History
  • No items yet
midpage
Eastman v. Maine Central Railroad
70 N.H. 240
| N.H. | 1899
|
Check Treatment

Extended consideration of this case is unnecessary. The contract between the parties was not contrary to law or public policy; the plaintiff made it voluntarily and understandingly; and the responsibility for its termination rests solely with himself. There is no rule better settled or more just in itself than that the parties who voluntarily and understandingly enter into such contracts must be governed by their terms, and are subject to the legal consequences of their violation. Having intentionally violated the express conditions of his contract the plaintiff's mileage book justly became forfeited in accordance with those conditions, and for the resulting pecuniary loss to him there is nobody to blame but himself. In such a case, the law affords no relief. A party cannot maintain an action founded upon his own dishonesty and fraud.

Judgment for the defendants.

All concurred.

Case Details

Case Name: Eastman v. Maine Central Railroad
Court Name: Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Date Published: Dec 5, 1899
Citation: 70 N.H. 240
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.