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

John G. Shields, Appellant, v. Isaac Thomas, and Mary, his Wife, Nancy Pirtle, John B. Goldsbury, Thomas Starks, and Elizabeth, his Wife, and James Pickett, and Ann, his Wife U.S. 253 (1856)

handle is hein.slavery/ussccases0204 and id is 1 raw text is: DECEMBER TERM, 1855. 253 Shields v. Thomas et al. for the contractor, according to the monthly estimates as the work progressed, and had finally dismissed him, so as to exclude his claim for the stock reserved when his contract had been ful- filled, there could have been no ground for affirming that a breach of the covenants had not been made by the corporation, and that damages were not due. There would have been no argument to support the allega- tion, that the contractor was a corporator to the extent of the stock which should have been reserved. But, as we interpret the declaration, its averments have this scope and operation. It was the duty of the arbitrator to ascertain the truth of these charges. They were the precise subject of the reference. The arbitrator has explained with clearness in his testimony his con- clusion on the subject of this stock, that the contractor had no title to the shares; that is, that he had not been paid by the appropriation of so much reserved stock for his use. This con- clusion of his is a final decision on the question, for this court cannot revise his mistakes, either of law or of fact, if such hiad been established. Burchell v. Marsh, 17 How. 344; Kleine v. Catara, 2 Gall. 61. The objections, we have noticed, include all that were insisted on in the argument. The objection taken to the absence of an original writ, or to the supply of a copy, is not tenable. The original writ had ful- filled its function when the defendant had been brought into court, and its loss did not affect the action of the plaintiff; and, it was a matter resting in the discretion of the court, upon ascer- taining the defective state of the record, to supply the deficiency. Our conclusion is, there is no error in the record. Judgment affirmed. Mr. Justice DANIEL dissented. JOHN G. SHIELDS, APPELLANT, V. ISAAC THOiAS, AND MfARY, HIS WIFE, NANCY PIRTLE, JOHN B. GOLDSBURY, THOM1AS STARES, AND ELIZABETH, HIS WIFE, AND JAMES PICKETT, AND ANN, HIS WIFE. Where there was an administration upon the estate of an intestate in Kentucky, the surety in the administration bond and a portion of the distributees residing there, the court of that place had jurisdiction over the stibject-matter ; and where the prin- cipal defendant, although residing out of the State, voluntarily appeared and an- swered a bill filed against him, the jurisdiction of the court was complete, and it had a right to pass a decree in the premises. If several claimants of portions of an estate unite in filing a bill, this does not make it multifarious. The authorities upon thi. subject examined. VOL. XYII 2:i

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