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

This Supreme Court case involved five appellants, James Dundas, Mordecai D. Lewis, Samuel W. Jones, Robert L. Pittfield and Robert Howell (the Appellants), who were appealing a decision made by the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Maryland in favor of Anne Hitchcock (the Respondent). The dispute between them arose from an agreement that was entered into on March 1st 1844 whereby they agreed to purchase certain real estate located in Baltimore City from her husband William Hitchcock and his wife Anne for $10,000 with payment due within two years after which time interest would accrue at 6%. When payment was not received as per their agreement she brought suit against them seeking damages for breach of contract. The Circuit Court found in her favor awarding her $1150 plus costs and interest accrued since April 1st 1845 when it became due according to their agreement. On appeal to the Supreme Court however it reversed this decision finding that there had been no breach because although payments had not been made as promised they still held title to said property so could be compelled to pay what was owed upon demand or forfeit said property if necessary thus making any award unnecessary given such remedy available under existing law at that time
In this case, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a deed of trust executed by Anne Hitchcock and her husband in 1839 was valid. The appellants argued that the deed did not meet certain requirements under Virginia law and should be declared invalid. However, the majority opinion held that it was valid because there had been no challenge to its validity prior to this case. In his dissenting opinion, Justice McLean disagreed with the majority's reasoning and argued that even if there had been no previous challenge, it still could have been challenged on legal grounds at any time before or during trial. He further stated that since Virginia law required certain formalities for such deeds of trust which were not met in this instance, he believed it should be declared invalid regardless of when or how long ago it had been executed.