Riggin v. Magwire

Supreme Court

Riggin v. Magwire

82 U.S. 549, 21 L. Ed. 232, 15 Wall. 549, 1872 U.S. LEXIS 1283

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedApril 28, 1873

StatusPublished

Cited by34 cases

This text of 82 U.S. 549 (Riggin v. Magwire) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Riggin v. Magwire, 82 U.S. 549, 21 L. Ed. 232, 15 Wall. 549, 1872 U.S. LEXIS 1283 (1873).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice BRADLEY

delivered the opinion of the court.

It is argued that under the right given by the fifth section of the Bankrupt Act of 1841 to prove “ uncertain and contingent demands,” the claim in this case could have been proven under the act. But the better opinion is, that as long as it remained wholly uncertain whether a contract or engagement would ever give rise to an actual duty or liability, and there was no means of removing the uncertainty by calculation, such contract or engagement was not provable under the act of 1841. See 1 Smith’s Leading Cases, ‡ notes to Mills v. Auriol, by Hare. In 1843 Martin Thomas was still living, and there was no certainty that his wife would ever sur *552 vive him. It was uncertain whether there would ever be any claim or demand. On what principle, then, could the covenant have been liquidated or reduced to present or probable value ? If an action at law had been brought on the covenant at that time nominal damages at most, if any damages at all, could have been recovered. It did not come within the category of annuities and debts payable in 'future, which are absolute existing claims. If it had como within that category, the value of the wife’s probability of survivorship after the death of her husband might have been calculated on the principles of life annuities. Had a proposition for a compromise of her right been made between her and the owner of the land, such a mode of estimation would have been very proper. But, without authority from the statute, the assignee would not have been justified in receiving such an estimate and making a dividend on it.

It is unnecessary to review the authorities pro and con on the subject. They are quite numerous, and are mostly cited in the note of Mr. Hare, above referred to. The ease is so clear that we have hardly entertained a doubt about it.

Judgment affirmed.

‡

Page 1137, 6th American edition.

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

Mr. Justice BRADLEY

delivered the opinion of the court.

It is argued that under the right given by the fifth section of the Bankrupt Act of 1841 to prove “ uncertain and contingent demands,” the claim in this case could have been proven under the act. But the better opinion is, that as long as it remained wholly uncertain whether a contract or engagement would ever give rise to an actual duty or liability, and there was no means of removing the uncertainty by calculation, such contract or engagement was not provable under the act of 1841. See 1 Smith’s Leading Cases, ‡ notes to Mills v. Auriol, by Hare. In 1843 Martin Thomas was still living, and there was no certainty that his wife would ever sur *552 vive him. It was uncertain whether there would ever be any claim or demand. On what principle, then, could the covenant have been liquidated or reduced to present or probable value ? If an action at law had been brought on the covenant at that time nominal damages at most, if any damages at all, could have been recovered. It did not come within the category of annuities and debts payable in 'future, which are absolute existing claims. If it had como within that category, the value of the wife’s probability of survivorship after the death of her husband might have been calculated on the principles of life annuities. Had a proposition for a compromise of her right been made between her and the owner of the land, such a mode of estimation would have been very proper. But, without authority from the statute, the assignee would not have been justified in receiving such an estimate and making a dividend on it.

It is unnecessary to review the authorities pro and con on the subject. They are quite numerous, and are mostly cited in the note of Mr. Hare, above referred to. The ease is so clear that we have hardly entertained a doubt about it.

Judgment affirmed.

‡

Page 1137, 6th American edition.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 U.S. 549, 21 L. Ed. 232, 15 Wall. 549, 1872 U.S. LEXIS 1283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/riggin-v-magwire-scotus-1873.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack