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

In James W. Downey, Executor of Samuel S. Downey, Deceased v Mary M. Hicks, Executrix of Joseph T. Hicks, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties that had been partially performed could be enforced by an executor after one party's death and the other party's refusal to complete performance under the contract terms. The court held that when a contract has been partially performed before either party’s death it is binding on their respective estates and can be enforced against them in equity even if they have not fully complied with its terms or conditions prior to their deaths; however, any damages due must still be determined according to law as though both parties were alive at the time of trial or judgment being rendered for enforcement purposes.
In the case of James W. Downey, Executor of Samuel S. Downey, Deceased v Mary M. Hicks, Executrix of Joseph T. Hicks, Deceased the dissenting opinion was that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written and not interpreted by courts to mean something other than what is stated in the agreement itself. The dissent argued that it would be wrong for a court to rewrite an agreement or add terms which were not included in it when originally drafted and agreed upon by both parties involved in the transaction; this could lead to confusion about what each party actually intended at the time they entered into their contractual relationship with one another and create uncertainty over how future contracts will be treated under similar circumstances if courts are allowed to interpret them differently from how they are written down on paper. Furthermore, allowing judges to reinterpret contracts can also open up opportunities for abuse since there may no longer be any clear guidelines governing how such agreements should be understood or enforced going forward - thus making it easier for those who wish take advantage of others through unfair means using legal loopholes created by judicial interpretation rather than actual language contained within documents themselves