Roger B. Taney

Name: Kelsey v. Hobby — Opinion of the Court
Author: Roger B. Taney

Summary

“Kelsey v. Hobby — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by Roger B. Taney. It explores elements such as Hobby, Kelsey and New York.

Quotes from Kelsey v. Hobby — Opinion of the Court (Roger B. Taney)

Roger B. Taney, Kelsey v. Hobby — Opinion of the Court

“ He also averred, that Hobby did not perform his part of the agreement, and that an execution was afterwards issued by the branch of the United States Bank, and the goods of Kelsey and McIntyre seized for the debt against which Hobby had convenanted to save them harmless; and that by reason of that execution and seizure, they were put to great expense, and were seriously injured in their credit, and embarrassed in their business as merchants; and insisted, that they were absolved from their agreement, by the failure of Hobby to perform his part. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Roger B. Taney, Kelsey v. Hobby — Opinion of the Court

“ If the appellants had received the sum claimed by Hobby, beyond the amount of debts paid, it mattered not how much more they had received; and the case did not require a statement of the exact amount. And as the evidence, and accounts, and exceptions, are all in the record, this court can determine whether the sum mentioned is proved to have been collected or not. And if it appears to have been received, the decree must be affirmed; even although it may happen that items allowed by the circuit court are disallowed here ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Roger B. Taney, Kelsey v. Hobby — Opinion of the Court

“ The mere circumstance of his being detained in New York, by reason of the process issued to recover the amount claimed, would be no objection to the validity of the agreement. But while Hobby was detained in the manner before stated, and unable to procure special bail, Kelsey obtained from him a release of matters not embraced in this suit, and much more important in amount; and which Hobby had been insisting on for years, and for which he was prosecuting a suit in the circuit court. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Roger B. Taney, Kelsey v. Hobby — Opinion of the Court

“ This motion was resisted on the part of the complainant, but the particular grounds upon which it was objected to are not set forth. The order of the court merely states that the release was impeached by the complainant's counsel, and authorizes both parties to take testimony in regard to the settlement and release. Under this order, sundry depositions were taken and returned on the part of the complainant, to show that the settlement and release were without consideration, and that they were extorted from him by the arrest under which he was detained in New York ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Roger B. Taney, Kelsey v. Hobby — Opinion of the Court

“ In November 1829, Hobby filed his bill against Kelsey and McIntyre, charging that there was a surplus of partnership effects, after paying all the debts, sufficient to satisfy the $5500 mentioned in the contract, as well as the Bridge bills, and praying an account. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Roger B. Taney, Kelsey v. Hobby — Opinion of the Court

“ The account in important particulars differs from the one on which Kelsey and McIntyre had themselves relied in the circuit court of South Carolina; and is more unfavorable to Hobby, by about $20,000, than the one which Hobby had been so long insisting on in his suit. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Roger B. Taney, Kelsey v. Hobby — Opinion of the Court

“ And Hobby remained in New York, unable to procure special bail, until the 6th of September, when he signed an admission of the correctness of an account concerning the whole controversy in the circuit court, which had been prepared some time before by one of Kelsey's clerks. According to this account, Kelsey and McIntyre had paid $15,859.73, under the agreement with Hobby, beyond the amount of the partnership funds that came to their hands. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Roger B. Taney, Kelsey v. Hobby — Opinion of the Court

“ It is a sufficient answer to this objection, to say, that it was admitted in evidence without exception, and both parties treated it as properly in the cause; and the complainant proceeded to take testimony to show that it was obtained from him by duress, and the defendants to show that it was freely and voluntarily given. ”

Roger B. Taney

Summary

Quotes from Kelsey v. Hobby — Opinion of the Court (Roger B. Taney)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature