Sloo v. Law
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
In equity. This was a motion for a receiver and an injunction. The bill was filed on the 2d day of November, 1849, for the purpose of rescinding a contract entered into between the plaintiff and George Law-, Marshall O. Roberts, Prosper M. Wetmore, and Edwin Cros-well, four of the defendants, on the 17th day of August, 1847, by which the latter agreed to build the steam-ships provided for in the fourth section of the act of congress, entitled “An act providing for the…
Read the full summary
In equity. This was a motion for a receiver and an injunction. The bill was filed on the 2d day of November, 1849, for the purpose of rescinding a contract entered into between the plaintiff and George Law-, Marshall O. Roberts, Prosper M. Wetmore, and Edwin Cros-well, four of the defendants, on the 17th day of August, 1847, by which the latter agreed to build the steam-ships provided for in the fourth section of the act of congress, entitled “An act providing for the building and equipment of four naval steam-ships,” passed March. 3d, 1847 (9 Stat. 187); or, in case the court should refuse…
1Opinion of the Court
NELSON, Circuit Justice.
The grounds of complaint in this case arise out of alleged infractions of the contract of the 17th of August, 1847, by which the defendants Law, Roberts, Wetmore, and Croswell bound themselves, for considerations therein stated, to construct and complete the five steam-ships, and to perform in all other respects the duties and obligations of the plaintiff under his contract with the government of the 20th of April in the same year. There are also charges and grounds of complaint against the trustees of that contract, and of the ships to be constructed and completed…
2Cited by1 opinion
- State v. EvansTennessee Superior Court for Law and Equity · 1806