Jump to content

Talk:Meath v. Board of Mississippi Levee Comissioners/Opinion of the Court

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: Meath v. Board of Mississippi Levee Comissioners, on a contract in writing, under seal, between Meath and the defendants, dated April 13, 1869, by which Meath covenanted to construct certain levees in the state of Mississippi on or before April 1, 1871, and the defendants covenanted to pay him a specified price per cubic yard in coupon bonds of the board of levee commissioners maturing on January 1, 1876 The declaration averred that the plaintiff expended large sums of money in the purchase of tools, etc, for the performance of said work, and while he was actually engaged therein, and with ample means to accomplish it, the defendants, on January 10, 1870, without any fault or negligence of plaintiff, ordered and coerced him to desist from work on said levees until further orders from them; that he was ready, able, and willing to go on with the work, and remained awaiting the orders of defendants until April 1, 1871, and was prevented from resuming the work by the wrongful acts of the defendants The declaration further averred that 'on March 26, 1877, plaintiff brought his suit in the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of Mississippi on said contract, and the same was tried on or about April 5, 1878, and was defeated for matter of form, in this, to-wit, because, though it appeared in the evidence that one Thomas Boyle had purchased, for the sole use and benefit of plaintiff, the said claim under said covenant against defendants at a sale thereof, made by plaintiff's assignee in bankruptcy, the formal assignment made by him to plaintiff had not in fact been executed and delivered until after the bringing of said action, though antedated to conform to the fact, and, therefore, that the said action should have been brought in the name of the said Boyle, for plaintiff's use' .
Source: Meath v. Board of Mississippi Levee Comissioners from http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/109
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 Meath v. Board of Mississippi Levee Comissioners/Opinion of the Court

Start a discussion