John McLean

Name: Slater v. Emerson — Opinion of the Court
Author: John McLean

Slater v. Emerson — Opinion of the Court

Summary

“Slater v. Emerson — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by John McLean. It explores elements such as plaintiff, contract and defendant.

Quotes from Slater v. Emerson — Opinion of the Court (John McLean)

John McLean, Slater v. Emerson — Opinion of the Court

“ The defendant is not without remedy against that party, and there may be said to be a natural connection between the amount which defendant in error loses, which is nothing, and the damage which plaintiff in error could recover for breach, which by law cannot, by reason of remoteness, be shown to be anything. In other words, the rule and its reason has no application to a collateral contract, in its nature a guaranty, when, for want of strict performance of the terms of the guaranty, one party has lost his remedy, and the other received no appreciable benefit. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John McLean, Slater v. Emerson — Opinion of the Court

“ It is difficut to perceive any satisfactory mode by which the defendant in the Circuit Court could recoup his demages for the failure of the plaintiff to perform in that action, or by bringing another suit. As a stock and bond holder, his damages would be remote and contingent. To ascertain the general damage of the company by the failure, and distribute that amount among the members of the company in proportion to their interests, would seem to be the proper mode; and this would be complicated, and not suited to the action of a jury. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John McLean, Slater v. Emerson — Opinion of the Court

“ All these facts being admitted or undisputed, we will consider the language of the contract. It states 'that the said Emerson, in consideration of the agreement of said Slater, hereinafter contained, and of one dollar to him paid, the receipt whereof is acknowledged, covenants and agrees with said Slater, that he, the said Emerson, will complete all the bridge work to be done by him for the Boston and Central Railroad Company, ready for laying down the iron rails for one track, by the 1st day of December next.'
There is no ambiguity in this language. No one can misconstrue it. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John McLean, Slater v. Emerson — Opinion of the Court

“ But even in such case, as it is settled that no forfeiture is incurred, but defendant might, as against party enjoying the benefit of his labor and materials, maintain an action for his quantum meruit in which the injury by non-performance might be set off and adjusted, it is submitted that the harmony of the law and the symmetry of pleading, which requires in actions on special contracts an allegation of complete performance, would be best preserved by obliging the party to resort to the common counts. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John McLean, Slater v. Emerson — Opinion of the Court

“ Another fact to be noticed as important was, that if the road could be completed by the 1st of December, the company had an assurance that a contract could be made with the Steamboat Company plying between Norwich and New York, making a continuous line between Boston and New York. This was considered an object of great importance-equal, as was supposed by a witness, to a quarter of a million of dollars, and, as the plaintiff supposed, to half a million. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John McLean, Slater v. Emerson — Opinion of the Court

“ The obligation assumed by Emerson in the new contract was, to finish the work, as stated, by the 1st of December, in consideration that forty-four hundred dollars should be paid to him in two days, and notes given for ten thousand dollars on the completion of the work. Slater, having no other interest in the work than any other stockholder and bondholder of similar amounts, paid the forth-four hundred dollars, and agreed to give his individual notes for the ten thousand dollars. In this contract he stands in the relation of a surety, and can only be held responsible under his agreement. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John McLean, Slater v. Emerson — Opinion of the Court

“ Platt on Covenants, Law Lib., vol. 3, p. 32, [72, 73.]
More than this the terms import the contrary. In that part containing the promise, the condition of time is wholly omitted thus indicating an intention not to make it dependent on time, but on work done. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John McLean, Slater v. Emerson — Opinion of the Court

“ We are to find, then, either from the reason of the thing, looking at the position of the parties and the surrounding circumstances, or by the application of the settled rules of construction, or by both, what was the intent of the parties; and,
1. ”

John McLean

Summary

Quotes from Slater v. Emerson — Opinion of the Court (John McLean)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature