Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Co. v. Dulany

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Co. v. Dulany

5 F. Cas. 562, 4 D.C. 85, 4 Cranch 85

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

DecidedMay 15, 1830

StatusPublished

This text of 5 F. Cas. 562 (Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Co. v. Dulany) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Co. v. Dulany, 5 F. Cas. 562, 4 D.C. 85, 4 Cranch 85 (circtddc 1830).

Pincite

Opinion

CRanch, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court (nem. con.) as follows:

The defence set up in this ease is, that the defendant subscribed under a mistake as to the right of the plaintiffs to coerce payment of future instalments; and that he was led into that mistake by the opinion of Mr. McCleary, who took from him his power of attorney to Mr. Smith, to subscribe; and who, in answer to an inquiry by the defendant, said that he did not think that the future instalments would be enforced, but that the shares might be forfeited by their non-payment.

The defendant, when he became a corporator in this company, was bound to know the obligations which he thereby incurred. Those obligations were matters of law resulting from the construction of the charter. Whether a subscriber was or was not liable to pay future instalments, was a question of law arising upon that construction. If both the parties were mistaken as to that construction, it is no ground, in equity or law, for setting aside the obligation of the contract. 1 Fonblanque, 106; Lord Irnham v. Child, 1 Bro. C. C. 91; Howard v. Hopkins, 2 Atk. 371; Gwinn v. Poole, Lutw. 1569; Powell’s opinion; Dig. 22, tit. 6; Cod. 1, 18; “ De juris et facti ignoraniid ” ; Code Napoleon, 2052, 2053, 2058; Eden on Injunctions, p. 10, and the cases there cited.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

CRanch, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court (nem. con.) as follows:

The defence set up in this ease is, that the defendant subscribed under a mistake as to the right of the plaintiffs to coerce payment of future instalments; and that he was led into that mistake by the opinion of Mr. McCleary, who took from him his power of attorney to Mr. Smith, to subscribe; and who, in answer to an inquiry by the defendant, said that he did not think that the future instalments would be enforced, but that the shares might be forfeited by their non-payment.

The defendant, when he became a corporator in this company, was bound to know the obligations which he thereby incurred. Those obligations were matters of law resulting from the construction of the charter. Whether a subscriber was or was not liable to pay future instalments, was a question of law arising upon that construction. If both the parties were mistaken as to that construction, it is no ground, in equity or law, for setting aside the obligation of the contract. 1 Fonblanque, 106; Lord Irnham v. Child, 1 Bro. C. C. 91; Howard v. Hopkins, 2 Atk. 371; Gwinn v. Poole, Lutw. 1569; Powell’s opinion; Dig. 22, tit. 6; Cod. 1, 18; “ De juris et facti ignoraniid ” ; Code Napoleon, 2052, 2053, 2058; Eden on Injunctions, p. 10, and the cases there cited.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 F. Cas. 562, 4 D.C. 85, 4 Cranch 85, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chesapeake-ohio-canal-co-v-dulany-circtddc-1830.