McDowell v. Blackstone Canal Co.

16 F. Cas. 70, 5 Mason C.C. 11
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Rhode Island
DecidedNovember 15, 1827
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 16 F. Cas. 70 (McDowell v. Blackstone Canal Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
McDowell v. Blackstone Canal Co., 16 F. Cas. 70, 5 Mason C.C. 11 (circtdri 1827).

Opinion

STORY, Circuit Justice.

It is the opinion of the court, that the advances being made on general account, and being so stated in the receipts, are to be applied in the first place to extinguish the amounts due upon the contracts which have been completed, and upon which alone the plaintiff has entitled himself to receive payment. They therefore go to discharge the amounts due for the completion of the contracts for the excavation and embankment of sections Nos. 11 and 12. But the work and labour upon section No. 14 was done under an entirely new and distinct con[71]*71tract, and that contract has never been fulfilled by the plaintiff so as to entitle him to any payment. On the contrary, his workmen have abandoned the job and run away. The advances therefore cannot be applied by the plaintiff in part payment of this contract, though made between December, 1825, and March, 1S2G, while the whole work on all the sections, Nos. 11, 12 and 14, was going on, for the decisive reason, that no man has a right to apply advances to a contract, when he has no claim to any money as earned under that contract. The money advanced is more than sufficient to pay all that is due, under the contracts for sections Nos. 11 and 12; and therefore we think it must be so applied in point of law, and the plaintiff, not having sued on the contract for section No. 14, is not entitled to recover in this action. Indeed it appears, that No. 14 has been since finished by other persons, upon a new contract with the corporation, at an extraordinary expense.

The plaintiff submitted to a discontinuance.

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

Related

Early v. Flannery
47 Vt. 253 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1875)
Caldwell v. Wentworth
14 N.H. 431 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1843)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
16 F. Cas. 70, 5 Mason C.C. 11, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcdowell-v-blackstone-canal-co-circtdri-1827.