Young v. Preston

8 U.S. 239

Opinion

But notwithstanding these authorities, The Court adhered to their first impression, some of the judges saying, *that the plaintiff had a clear right of action upon the sealed instrument; he might aver in his declaration that he had, in part, performed the work, and was ready to do the rest, but was prevented by the defendant. And whenever a man may have an action on a sealed instrument, he is bound to resort to it.

Judgment reversed.¹

1 See notes to January v. Goodman, 1 Dall, 208.