Smith Thompson

Name: Hobson v. McArthur — Opinion of the Court
Author: Smith Thompson

Hobson v. McArthur — Opinion of the Court

Summary

“Hobson v. McArthur — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by Smith Thompson. It explores elements such as McArthur, appraisement and Hobson.

Quotes from Hobson v. McArthur — Opinion of the Court (Smith Thompson)

Smith Thompson, Hobson v. McArthur — Opinion of the Court

“ The mode of ascertaining the value of the lands is provided for in the contract. Each party is to choose one man; and if the men thus chosen cannot agree, they 'are to choose a third man, who, together with the other two, shall agree on the price of the land.' It was, doubtless, competent for the parties to agree, that the concurrence of the whole number of appraisers should be requisite to constitute a valid appraisement of the land. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Smith Thompson, Hobson v. McArthur — Opinion of the Court

“ This could never have been the understanding of the parties. It is a more reasonable construction, to consider the third man in the character of an umpire, to decide between the two that should disagree. This would insure the accomplishment of the object the parties had in view; but a contrary construction would most likely defeat that object. Upon this view of the agreement, the valuation by two of the appraisers was within the submission.
It has also been made a question, whether the whole of the land re-entered by McArthur was to be valued, or only so much as was to be retained by Hobson. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Smith Thompson, Hobson v. McArthur — Opinion of the Court

“ The defendant admits, that he rejected all the demands and requisitions of the complainant, made at the time alluded to, and all the demands which had for their object and design a disregard in part or in whole of the doings of the appraisers. The defendant admits the passage of an act of congress mentioned in the bill, and that he means to avail himself of its provisions, if he can obtain a settlement of the matter with the complainant; but he is prevented by the complainant from relinquishing his interest in the land to the United States. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Smith Thompson, Hobson v. McArthur — Opinion of the Court

“ The principle is, that an offer to do a thing is so far equivalent to performance, that it will entitle the person making it to demand whatever he was to have upon the performance. 2 Ld. Raym. 961; Hotham v. East India Company, 1 T. R. 645; Parker v. Parkenhorn, 2 W. C. C. 142; 15 Petersd. 24; Doug. 259, 659.
The interpretation of the contract which is contended for, was not fully sustained by the court below. That court set aside the appraisement of McArthur's entries, and directed the parties to re-appoint other appraisers. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Smith Thompson, Hobson v. McArthur — Opinion of the Court

“ Assuming, therefore, that the appraisement, so far as it respected the McArthur entries, was void, for any one or all the reasons assigned, and valid as to the residue; I proceed to inquire, what decree the complainants are entitled to ask for? McArthur had a right, by the contract, to pay in land or money, at his option; and on payment being made or tendered, in either mode, he had a right to require Hobson to release. Every stipulation to pay a debt in specific property is presumed to be made in favor of the debtor ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Smith Thompson, Hobson v. McArthur — Opinion of the Court

“ It has been argued, that this being a delegation of power to the three for a mere private purpose all must agree, or the authority has not been pursued. This may be admitted to be the rule, where the original delegation of the power is to the three, without any other provision on the subject. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Smith Thompson, Hobson v. McArthur — Opinion of the Court

“ There is a difference in this respect between a private authority, and a public trust and duty; in the former case, all must join; in the latter, the power to several is well executed by the majority: 'unless it be expressly provided in the submission, that a less number than all the arbitrators named may make the award, the concurrence of tall is necessary.' Kyd on Awards 106 ”

Smith Thompson

Summary

Quotes from Hobson v. McArthur — Opinion of the Court (Smith Thompson)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature