| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

In Carnochan and Mitchel v. Christie and Another, the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case involving two parties who had entered into an agreement to purchase land in Kentucky from one another. The plaintiffs argued that they were entitled to specific performance of the contract due to its terms, while defendants contended that it was unenforceable because it lacked sufficient consideration. After examining both sides' arguments, Chief Justice John Marshall determined that there was indeed sufficient consideration for the contract as evidenced by each party's promise to perform their respective obligations under it. He further held that since no fraud or mistake had been alleged on either side, specific performance should be granted in favor of the plaintiffs. Ultimately, this decision established precedent for future cases regarding contracts lacking adequate consideration but still being enforceable if all other requirements are met.
In Carnochan and Mitchel v. Christie and Another, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a deed of trust executed by two individuals in favor of another could be enforced against their heirs after they had passed away. The majority opinion held that it could not, as such an agreement would constitute a contract for life which is void under common law. However, Justice Story dissented from this decision on the grounds that there was no evidence presented to show that the parties intended for their agreement to extend beyond death or even contemplated such an event occurring during its duration. He argued further that if any party did intend for it to survive death then it should be upheld since contracts are generally binding upon all successors unless otherwise specified within them. Therefore he concluded that while contracts made with intent extending beyond death may still be invalidated due to public policy considerations, this particular case did not present sufficient evidence either way and thus should have been decided in favor of enforcing the deed of trust between these parties' respective heirs.