Roysdon v. Sumner
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Error to Chicot Circuit Court. This was an action of covenant, upon certain articles of agreement, by which Sumner agreed and covenanted, that whereas he had employed Roysdon, as an attorney, to defend him in the case of Wm. L. Baldwin against him, brought in Chicot Circuit Court, for a certain negro girl Lizza, purchased by him of James Gray; “in which case I am to pay him, the said Roysdon, the sum of one hundred and fifty dollars, if I gain the said suit,” &c.
Read the full summary
Error to Chicot Circuit Court. This was an action of covenant, upon certain articles of agreement, by which Sumner agreed and covenanted, that whereas he had employed Roysdon, as an attorney, to defend him in the case of Wm. L. Baldwin against him, brought in Chicot Circuit Court, for a certain negro girl Lizza, purchased by him of James Gray; “in which case I am to pay him, the said Roysdon, the sum of one hundred and fifty dollars, if I gain the said suit,” &c. The declaration avers that Sumner by his covenant, covenanted to pay Roysdon the sum of $150, “provided said plaintiff gained a…
1Opinion of the CourtDickinson, Judge
In declaring upon a covenant, it is not necessary to set out the exact words of the agreement, but only to state its legal effect according to its true meaning and intention. Whenever a covenant is in its terms defective, it ought to be set out according to its legal consequences. Grannis vs. Clark, 8 Cowen 35; Osborne vs. Lawrence, 9 Wend. 135; 1 Ch. Pl. 302-3; Lunt vs. Padelford, 10 Mass. Rep. 320; Gaster vs. Ashley, 1 Ark. 325. The principle is so well settled that it is unnecessary to say any thing further in defence of it. The breaches are properly assigned in the declaration, for they…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Crocker v. WhitneyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1813
- Osborne v. LawrenceNew York Supreme Court · 1832
- Gaster v. AshleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1839