Nathan Clifford

Name: Emerson v. Slater — Opinion of the Court
Author: Nathan Clifford

Emerson v. Slater — Opinion of the Court

Summary

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

Quotes from Emerson v. Slater — Opinion of the Court (Nathan Clifford)

Nathan Clifford, Emerson v. Slater — Opinion of the Court

“ But we are not aware of any case or dictum showing that because a surety, after he has become bound as such, takes security from his principal to indemnify himself against loss by his contract of suretyship, he thereby ceases to be a surety and becomes a principal debtor. There are decisions, no doubt well founded, that an absolute parol promise to pay the debt of another, in consideration of property put into the promissor's hands to enable him to pay the debt, makes the debt his own, and he is not a surety, within the statute of frauds. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Nathan Clifford, Emerson v. Slater — Opinion of the Court

“ Apply these principles to the terms of the written agreement, in view of the attending circumstances and the subject matter, and it is quite clear that the promise of the defendant was an original undertaking on a good and valid consideration moving from the plaintiff at the time the instrument was executed. On its face it purports to be a contract between the parties, for their own benefit; one agreeing to do certain work, and furnish certain materials, and the other agreeing to pay therefor a stipulated compensation. Their promises are mutual, and in one respect dependent. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Nathan Clifford, Emerson v. Slater — Opinion of the Court

“ That Emerson was bound by his contract with the corporation to do so. And every act and word of Slater, and every omission to speak or act, is entirely consistent with the assumption, that if Emerson should finish the work before December 1st, he was to look to him for the notes; if he should not finish before December 1st, he was to look to the corporation for whom and under a contract with whom he was doing the work.
There is no case of recovering on a quantum meruit or quantum valebant, except for some work or materials done or furnished, and that too for the defendant. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Nathan Clifford, Emerson v. Slater — Opinion of the Court

“ On the other hand, assuming the theory of the defendant to be correct, that, by the true construction of the contract, his undertaking was a special promise for the debt, default, or misdoings, of the railroad company, then perhaps the better opinion is, according to the weight of authority, that a written contract within the statute of frauds cannot be varied by any subsequent agreement of the parties, unless such new agreement is also in writing. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Nathan Clifford, Emerson v. Slater — Opinion of the Court

“ If, as this court has heretofore decided, Slater was a surety for the price of work done for the corporation, there can be no recovery had against him on counts for work, labor, and materials, furnished to himself. None were furnished to himself. The law will not imply a promise to pay another's debt. It requires an express promise in writing.
The evidence given on the trial has no tendency to show any promise by Slater, save by the written contract.
He knew Emerson was going on with his work, both before and after December 1st. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Nathan Clifford, Emerson v. Slater — Opinion of the Court

“ To remedy this difficulty, and insure the completion of the bridges so as to render the road available for use, this arrangement was made by the defendant. It was not an arrangement to pay a subsisting indebtedness, but only for work to be done and materials to be furnished; monthly payments were discontinued, and the plaintiff was induced, with an advance of forty-four hundred dollars, to resume and complete the work at his own expense. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Nathan Clifford, Emerson v. Slater — Opinion of the Court

“ The judgment of the Circuit Court is therefore reversed, with costs, and the cause remanded with directions to issue a new venire.
Notes
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105) . ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Nathan Clifford, Emerson v. Slater — Opinion of the Court

“ Harvey v. Grabham, 5 Ad. and El., 61; 1 Phil. Ev., (Cow. & Hill's ed.,) p. 563, n. 987; Munroe v. Perkins, 9 Pick., 298; Snow v. Inhabitants of Ware, 13 Met., 42; Vicary v. Moore, 2 Watts, 451; Cummings v. ”

Nathan Clifford

Summary

Quotes from Emerson v. Slater — Opinion of the Court (Nathan Clifford)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature