Goldsborough v. Orr,
21 U.S. 217 (1823)

Annotate this Case
  • Syllabus  | 
  • Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Goldsborough v. Orr, 21 U.S. 8 Wheat. 217 217 (1823)

Goldsborough v. Orr

21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 217


Where the acts stipulated to be done are to be done at different times, the covenants are to be construed as independent of each other.

Application of this principle to the peculiar circumstances of the present case.

Under the Act of Assembly of Maryland of 1795, c. 56, if the defendant appears, and dissolves the attachment, a declaration and subsequent pleadings are not necessary, as in other actions, but the cause may be tried upon a short note.

It seems, under the same act, that an attachment will not lie in a case ex contractu for unliquidated damages for the nondelivery of goods. But where the plaintiff is entitled to a stipulated sum of money in lieu of a specific article to be delivered, an attachment will lie.

Page 21 U. S. 218

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.