TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Manchester v. Warren

Manchester, v. Warren & A.

Manchester v. Warren, 32 A. 763 (N.H. 1893)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of New Hampshire · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 5, 1893
Judges
Chase
Citations
32 A. 76367 N.H. 482
Headnotes
If A and B jointly contract with C to do certain work, and agree with each other that one shall do a definite part of the work and the other the remainder, neither having control over the other in the performance of his part, A is not liable to a stranger for an injury caused by B in doing his part of the work.
Summary
Case, for damages and costs recovered and expenses incurred in an action against the plaintiffs, in favor of a person injured by a defect in a highway caused by the defendants. Facts agreed. The defendants, Warren and Beede, took a contract to cut, saw, and deliver on the cars all the timber standing on a certain lot, at $5.25 a thousand. Warren owned a sawmill and Beede owned teams; and before making the contract, they agreed with each other that Warren should do the sawing and have $2 a thousand for it, and that Beede should cut the timber, haul the logs to the mill, place them on the railways, take away the lumber and deliver it on the cars, and have the balance of the contract price. They joined in the contract with the owner of the lot because he would not contract with them severally for their respective parts of the work. They did the work in accordance with their agreement with each other. Beede used his own teams and employed and paid his own help in doing his part. He left some logs by the side of a highway, which rendered it defective, and a person recovered judgment against the plaintiffs for an injury caused by the defect. The .question of Warren’s liability was reserved.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Chase

Chase, J.

The liability of Warren to the plaintiffs for Beede’s acts depends upon the relation existing between him and Beede, *483 and not upon that existing between the two jointly and the owner of the lot. By their agreement with each other, Warren had no right to control Beede’s action in the performance of his part of the contract. Beetle was not Warren’s agent or servant, but an independent contractor. The leaving o£ the logs in the highway being an independent act of his, he alone is responsible for it. 2 Thomp. Neg. 899; Shearm. &' Red. Neg., s. 76 et seq.; Carter v. Berlin Mills, 58 N. H. 52.

Gase discharged.

All concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1913: 11921: 11974: 219132026peak 1974 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Wilson v. Nooter Corp.499 F.2d 705 (1st Cir. 1974)
  2. Bernier ex rel. Paquet v. Whitefield116 A. 133 (N.H. 1921)
  3. Alfred Wilson v. Nooter Corporation, and Third Party v499 F.2d 705 (1st Cir. 1974)
  4. Merron v. Fessenden87 A. 248 (N.H. 1913)

Most recent

  1. Alfred Wilson v. Nooter Corporation, and Third Party v499 F.2d 705 (1st Cir. 1974)
  2. Wilson v. Nooter Corp.499 F.2d 705 (1st Cir. 1974)
  3. Bernier ex rel. Paquet v. Whitefield116 A. 133 (N.H. 1921)
  4. Merron v. Fessenden87 A. 248 (N.H. 1913)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Carter v. Berlin Mills Co., 58 N.H. 52 (1876) 8

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list