Twyman v. McKay

D.C. Circuit

Twyman v. McKay

46 App. D.C. 128, 1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 2513

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedFebruary 5, 1917

DocketNos. 2876 and 2877

StatusPublished

This text of 46 App. D.C. 128 (Twyman v. McKay) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Twyman v. McKay, 46 App. D.C. 128, 1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 2513 (D.C. Cir. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Robb

delivered the opinion of the Court:

We think the facts clearly bring this case within the rule laid down in Whitney v. Hay, 15 App. D. C. 154, affirmed in 181 U. S. 77, 45 L. ed. 758, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 537; Cherry v. Whalen, 25 App. D. C. 537; Brown v. Sutton, 129 U. S. 238, 32 L. ed. 664, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 273. All the circumstances irresistibly point to the existence of a contract between Twyman and the plaintiff, and the paper which he signed in 1902, looking to the future as it did, evidently expressed the final arrangement. That this paper was witnessed by sisters of the plaintiff is no reason, for looking upon it with suspicion. As was said in Brown v. Sutton, 129 U. S. 238, 248, 32 L. ed. 664, 668, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 273, there is nothing to discredit their testimony, which not only is wholly uncontradicted, but also consistent with all the circumstances of the case. Under the facts disclosed, the plaintiff, having carried out her part of the contract, clearly is entitled to the relief granted, but we are equally [131]*131clear in the view that it was not intended that she should receive more.

The decree is affirmed, with costs to the plaintiff. Affirmed.

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

Mr. Justice Robb

delivered the opinion of the Court:

We think the facts clearly bring this case within the rule laid down in Whitney v. Hay, 15 App. D. C. 154, affirmed in 181 U. S. 77, 45 L. ed. 758, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 537; Cherry v. Whalen, 25 App. D. C. 537; Brown v. Sutton, 129 U. S. 238, 32 L. ed. 664, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 273. All the circumstances irresistibly point to the existence of a contract between Twyman and the plaintiff, and the paper which he signed in 1902, looking to the future as it did, evidently expressed the final arrangement. That this paper was witnessed by sisters of the plaintiff is no reason, for looking upon it with suspicion. As was said in Brown v. Sutton, 129 U. S. 238, 248, 32 L. ed. 664, 668, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 273, there is nothing to discredit their testimony, which not only is wholly uncontradicted, but also consistent with all the circumstances of the case. Under the facts disclosed, the plaintiff, having carried out her part of the contract, clearly is entitled to the relief granted, but we are equally [131]*131clear in the view that it was not intended that she should receive more.

The decree is affirmed, with costs to the plaintiff. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 App. D.C. 128, 1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 2513, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/twyman-v-mckay-cadc-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack