US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ |™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for

UNION RAILROAD CO. V. DULL, 124 U. S. 173 (1888)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 124 U. S. 173 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Union Railroad Co. v. Dull, 124 U.S. 173 (1888)

Union Railroad Company v. Dull

Argued November 15-16, 1887

Decided January 16, 1888

124 U.S. 173


In a suit in equity the court, in determining the facts from the pleadings and proofs, the answer being under oath, applies the rule stated in Vigel v. Hopp, 104 U. S. 441.

The fact alone that after a contract was entered into by a railroad company for the construction of a tunnel, one of its employs who neither represented chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 124 U. S. 174

it in making the contract nor had supervision, and control of the work done under it, or in the ascertainment of the amount due the contractors, was, without the knowledge of the company, admitted by the contractors to a share in the profits affords no ground in equity for setting aside an award between the contractors and the company settling the sum due from the company under the contract after its complete execution, and the judgment upon the award; nor does the fact that the employee was a material witness before the arbitrators in determining the sum awarded furnish such ground, when there is nothing in the case to show that he stated what he did not believe to be true, and when the weight of the evidence shows that what he said was true.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Court applies the rule stated in Atlantic Delaine Co. v. James, 94 U. S. 207, that the power to cancel an executed contract

"ought not to be exercised except in a clear case, and never for an alleged fraud unless the fraud be made clearly to appear; never for alleged false representations unless their falsity is certainly proved and unless the complainant has been deceived and injured by them."

Bill in equity. Decree dismissing the bill. The complainant appealed. The case is stated in the opinion of the Court.

ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for Search for

Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



Browse By ->> Volume


Browse By ->> Year


  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library |™