About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Covington Drawbridge Company, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Alexander O. Shepherd, Elijah F. Gillan, James Davidson, Samuel McClure, Samuel Peters, and George Willard, The U.S. 227 (1858)

handle is hein.slavery/ussccases0181 and id is 1 raw text is: DECEMBER TERM, 1857. Covington .Drawbri'dge Com.any v. Shepherd et al. prepared to comply with the terms of the contract, by meeting the wishes of MeGavock, the defendant, in regard to the notes giVen by him when he purchased the plantation from Thibo- daux, even if they were required to pay cash for the amount for which the commercial firm were endorsers, by having dis- counted a portion of Dr. Bard's obligations. This is an opin.ion of what might have been effected towards the con- summation of the contract of sale, rather than what had been done preparatory, and with a view to the fulfilment, which would have been much more pertinent to the issue in the case. As the terms of sale were explicit, the proposal to fulfil should have been equally so. Nothing should have been left to con- jecture or speculation. There should have been as much cer- tainty on the one side of the contract as upon the other. Cer- tainty in the offer to fulfil is as important to the vendor as in the terms of the sale to the vendee, and equally necessary be- fore the vendor can be put in fault. The broker must con- plete the sale; that is, he must find a purchaser in a situation and ready and willing to complete the purchase ow the terms agreed on, before he is entitled to his commissions. Then he will be entitled to them, though the vendor refuse to go on and perfect tLe sale. Judgment of the court below reversed. THE COVINGTON DRAWBRIDGE COMPANY, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. ALEXANDER 0. SHEPHERD, ELI3AH F. GILLAN, JAMES DA- VIDSON, SAMUEL MCCLURE, SAMUEL PETERS, ,AND GEORGE WILLARD. An averment, in pleading, that the Covington Drawbridge Company were citizens of Indiana was sufficient to give jurisdiction to the Circuit Court of the United States, because the company was incorporated by a public statute of the State which the court was bound judicially to notice. The former decisions of this court upon this subject examined. THIs case was brought up, by writ- of error; from the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of Indiana. Shepherd and the other defendants in error, styling them- selves citizens of Ohio, brought an action of trespass on the case against the Covington Drawbridge Company, citizens of the State of Indiana, for injuries sustained by a steamboat be- longing to the plaintiffs, in consequence of negligence in at. tending to the draw. The defendants pleaded not guilty, and the case was tried by a jury, who found a verdict for the plain- tiffs, awarding $6,084.93. There were no prayers to. the

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most