Case ID: nh_68/html/0337-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Blodgett, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hillsborough,
    June, 1895.
    Bryson v. Haley.
    It is no defence to an action for work done and materials furnished in fitting up a barroom, that the plaintiff knew the premises were to be used for the illegal sale of liquor.
    Assumpsit, for labor and materials. Facts found by the court» The plaintiff, a painter, furnished to the defendant, at his request, labor and materials in painting and decorating a bar and the room containing it. The plaintiff knew that it was the purpose of the defendant to use the room and bar in illegally selling intoxicating liquors; and after their completion they were' so used. The plaintiff took no part in their illegal use. It was held that the defendant was liable, to which ruling he excepted.
    
      O’ Connor $ Shea, for the plaintiff.
    
      Sulloway Topliff.for the defendant.
   Blodgett, J.

The plaintiff is not precluded from a recovery of the value of his labor and materials upon the bar and, the room containing it by his knowledge that the defendant intended to use them for an unlawful purpose. The case is not distinguishable in principle from Delavina v. Hill, 65 N. H. 94. See, in addition, Tracy v. Talmage, 14 N. H. 162,— 67 Am. Dec. 132, and note; Tyler v. Carlisle, 79 Me. 210,— 1 Am. St. Rep. 301, and note; Michael v. Bacon, 49 Mo. 474,— 8 Am. Rep. 138, and note; Webber v. Donnelly, 33 Mich. 469; Hubbard v. Moore, 24 La. An., 591, — 13 Am. Rep. 128; Mahood v. Tealza, 26 La. An. 108,— 21 Am. Rep. 546.

Exception overruled.

.¡Chase, J., did not sit: the others concurred.