Jump to content

Talk:Hobbs v. McLean

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikisource
This page is part of a WikiProject to improve the United States Supreme Court case pages.
To participate see the project page.
Information about this edition
Edition: Hobbs v. McLean, the following facts: On August 19, 1876, Major Card, a quartermaster in the army of the United States, advertised for bids for furnishing 6,000 cords of wood and 800 tons of hay at the Tongue River military station, in Montana territory Campbell K Peck, whose assignee in bankruptcy is the appellant, put in a bid, and, believing that the contract would be awarded to him, on Auguat 19, 1876, entered into articles of copartnership with the plaintiffs, McLean and Harmon, for the purpose of carrying out the contract with the United States which he expected to make These articles provided that Peck should furnish one-half the capital necessary to carry on the partnership business, and McLean and Harmon each one-fourth, and that the profits and losses of the partnership should be divided in like proportions Harmon agreed to take charge of the office of this partnership, which was to be at Fort Lincoln, and superintend the business at that place, and McLean agreed to go to the place of delivery on the Yellowstone, and superintend the business there, but neither was to make any charges for his services The articles of partnership further provided that, when the contract with the government was completed, a settlement of profits and losses should be made 'on the basis of the above terms of partnership,' and, 'if a dissolution is decided on, first all debts shall be paid, and then all profits divided in the proportions heretofore mentioned' After the signing of these partnership articles the bid of Peck was accepted, and on August 25th the contract between him and the United States was signed and delivered The partners did not deliver the hay required by the contract, because, as they claimed, they were prevented from so doing by the officers of the army of the United States, but did cut and deliver the wood McLean and Harmon did all the work that was done, and advanced all the money that was expected in performing the contract, except about $100, which was furnished by Peck The word delivered under the contract amounted in value at the contract price to $51,900, but the United States refused to pay that sum, claiming damages for the failure to deliver the hay, but consented to pay, and did pay, $10,91937 McLean and Harmon received $10,000 of this sum, and Peck $919,37, which was over $800 more than he advanced for the performance of the contract The parties interested being dissatisfied with the action of the government in refusing payment in full for the wood delivered, Peck, who was the only person to whom the government was bound, filed, on November 7, 1877, his petition in the court of claims against the United States, demanding $55,00363 damages for the breach of the contract The United States traversed the petition, and, upon final hearing in the court of claims, judgment was rendered for Peck, the claimant, for $43,11363 From this judgment both parties appealed to this court, which, in February, 1880, affirmed the judgment of the court of claims, and allowed the claimant, in addition to the amount already awarded him, the further sum of $2,660, making the entire judgment in favor of the claimant $45,77363 .
Source: Hobbs v. McLean from http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/117
Contributor(s): BenchBot
Level of progress: Text being edited
Notes: Gathered and wikified using an automated tool. See this documentation for more information.
Proofreaders:

Start a discussion about Hobbs v. McLean

Start a discussion