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

Greenberry Dorsey, Complainant and Appellant, v. Samuel Packwood U.S. 126 (1852)

handle is hein.slavery/ussccases0238 and id is 1 raw text is: 126 SUPREME COURT. Dorsey v. Packwood. reasons of the Court of Appeals covered both cases, and they were argued in this court together by the same counsel. Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opiniol of the court. This case involves the same principles as the case of Wil- .liams, permanent Trustee of James Williams, already decided; and we refer to the opinion there delivered for our decision in this case. The case is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Order. This cause came on to be heard on- the transcript of the re- cord from the Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland for the Western Shore, and was argued by counsel.- On consider- ation whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this court, that this cause be, and the same is hereby, dismissed, for the want of jurisdiction. GREENBERRY DoRSEY, COMPLAINANT AND APPELLANT, V. SAMX- UEL PACKWOOD. An agreement, whereby the purchaser of a plantation bound himself to transfer to his son-in-law one half of the plantation, slaves, cattle, and stock, as soon as the son-in-law should pay for one half of the cost of said property, either with his own private means, or with one half of the profits of the plantation, was deficient in mutuality. The son-in-law was not bound to render any services nor pay any money. It was a nude pat. rt was not an alternative obligation upon the son-in-law, Because the election to pay his half out of the profits would ave been merely paying with another mants money. Even if the agreement possessed mutuaity, there was no performance, or offer of performance by the son-in-law for twventy-seven years. Moreover, fifteen years after the agreement, when the plantation was likely to prove a ruinous purchase, the son-in-law abandoned and released all his claim. THIS was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The leading facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court, to which the reader is referred. Upon the hearing in the Circuit Court, the bill was dismissed, and Dorsey appealed to this court. It was argued by Mr. Hendersor for the appellant, and 11r. Butler for the appellee. M7Jr. Henderson, for the appellant, filed an elaborate argument,

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