Colebrook Water Co. v. Parsons
| Decision Date | 25 June 1936 |
| Citation | Colebrook Water Co. v. Parsons, 88 N.H. 217, 186 A. 14 (N.H. 1936) |
| Parties | COLEBROOK WATER CO. v. PARSONS et al. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Transferred from Superior Court, Coos County; James, Judge.
Action by the Colebrook Water Company against Cushman H. Parsons and another. The case was transferred on a stipulation.
Judgment for defendants.
Action, involving a contract under seal executed by the plaintiff and Cushman H. Parsons, who is referred to in the opinion as the defendant. The reserved case does not state the form of action or the relationship of the defendants. It is assumed that Eliza H. Parsons, the second defendant, is the wife of Cushman H. Parsons. The material clauses of the contract are as follows:
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
3 cases
-
Aldrich v. Charles Beauregard & Sons, Inc.
...her rights against others, must prevail over other ambiguous language from which a contrary meaning might be drawn. Colebrook Water Co. v. Parsons, 88 N.H. 217, 186 A. 14. It follows that the defendant's motion to dismiss cannot be granted on the grounds that the instruments must be constru......
-
Wilko of Nashua, Inc. v. TAP Realty, Inc.
...general terms of a contract may be limited by words that state the views and objectives of the parties, Colebrook Water Company v. Parsons, 88 N.H. 217, 186 A. 14 (1936) (per curiam); Woods v. Nashua Mfg. Co., 5 N.H. 467, 473 (1831), when two clear, unambiguous, alternative clauses conflict......
- Emerson v. Cobb