Summary

John McLean Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company v…

No one can conduct a case in safety under it. Not fact and justice, but skill, must triumph; or the prejudices of the court and jurors prevail.
But it is more important to remark, that these instructions are a substitute for the practice which prevails elsewhere, of taking exceptions to the admission of evidence, or claiming the rejectionon of evidence. And this is a answer to the suggestion, that the defendants should have objected to, and have asked the court to overrule the evidence.
Source: Wikisource

John McLean Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company v…

While the damages claimed by the defendants, in the court below, were overruled; yet by this instruction, the whole question as to damages was left open to the jury, and a verdict was given in their favour, for upwards of 20,000 dollars. In the circuit court, if the claims of the defendants in error are just, they will have no difficulties in another trial: and, if the law requires it, they may amend the declaration and the notice.
It is not decided that a contract may be inferred from the acts of a corporation. It is the better opinion, in modern times, that it can be done
Source: Wikisource

John McLean Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company v…

By the instruction of the court, if the jury found, from the evidence, that the contract had been made by the defendants, as stated, and that the money had been paid to the hands detained for want of cement, the plaintiffs were entitled to a verdict on the count for money laid out and expended.
In the argument, it was contended, that there was no legal proof of the special contract. That a corporation can only contract within the terms of its charter, and that there does not appear to have been any action of the board, sanctioning the contract as insisted on by the plaintiffs.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature