Porter v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co.

Citation205 Mass. 590,91 N.E. 875
PartiesPORTER v. NEW YORK, N.H. & H. R. CO.
Decision Date17 May 1910
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
COUNSEL

E. F. Leonard, for plaintiff.

Choate, Hall & Stewart, for defendant.

OPINION

HAMMOND, J.

These exceptions relate only to the seventh count. It is agreed that the verdict for the defendant on that count was rightly ordered if the contract of July 28, 1897, between the parties was valid.

This contract is attacked upon the grounds of want of consideration and of duress. Upon neither ground can the attack succeed. The defendant was under no obligation, either as a common carrier or by reason of any prior contracts, to continue either the maintenance or operation of the tracks in question, and its undertaking to continue such maintenance and operation was ample consideration for the undertakings on the part of the plaintiff. The defendant, having the right to discontinue the maintenance and operation, had the right to inform the plaintiff that unless he conformed to its terms it would be obliged to do so. The action of the defendant's station agent, even if correctly stated by the plaintiff, which the defendant does not admit, falls far short of duress.

Exceptions overruled.

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Aetna Ins. Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • October 8, 1935
    ...108 Kan. 700, 196 P. 1068; Adamstown Canning & Supply Co. v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 137 Md. 199, 112 A. 286; Porter v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 205 Mass. 590, 91 N. E. 875; New York Cent. R. Co. v. Wm. Culkeen & Sons Co., 249 Mass. 71, 144 N. E. 96; Mann v. Pere Marquette R. Co., 135 Mi......
  • New York Cent. R. Co. v. Wm. Culkeen & Sons Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • May 23, 1924
    ...N. E. 532. [3] The covenant thus construed is valid and binding. It contravenes no rule of public policy. Porter v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad, 205 Mass. 590, 91 N. E. 875;Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co., 175 U. S. 91, 20 Sup. Ct. 33, 44 L. E......
  • Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. Jones
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • June 4, 1917
    ... ... Cas. 74; Griswold ... v. Railroad, 24 L. R. A. 751; Porter v ... Railroad, 205 Mass. 590; Hartford Ins. Co. v ... Railroad, ... 107 Mass. 330; Manger v. Crosby, 117 Mass. 330; ... New York and New Haven R. R. Co. v. Pixler, 19 Barb ... 428; Walters v ... ...
  • Cappy's Inc. v. Dorgan
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • February 1, 1943
    ...or influence that is illegal or wrongful. Foss v. Hildreth, 10 Allen 76;Taylor v. Iaques, 106 Mass. 291.Porter v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad 205 Mass. 590, 91 N.E. 875; Lajoie v. Milliken, 242 Mass. 508, 136 N.E. 419, Am.Law Inst.Restatement: Contracts, § 492; Williston, Rev.Ed......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT