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

Charles Minturn, appellant, brought a case against Lafayette Maynard, Gilbert A. Grant, Thomas G. Wells, Lucien Skinner, Frederick Billings Charles J. Brenham Isaac T Mott J De La Montagne E M Neal and Thomas L Chapman for the purpose of recovering damages from them in an amount exceeding $50000 due to him as compensation for services rendered by him to the defendants while he was employed as their agent in California during 1849-1850. The court found that Minturn had not proven his claim and dismissed it with costs assessed against him; however on appeal the Supreme Court reversed this decision finding that there was sufficient evidence presented at trial which showed that Minturn had performed valuable services for the defendants and should be compensated accordingly. The Supreme Court remanded back to lower court so they could determine what amount of money would be fair compensation for these services provided by Minturn
In the case of Charles Minturn v. Lafayette Maynard et al., the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a contract between two parties, in which one party agreed to pay for land owned by another, could be enforced if it had been made without consideration and not signed by both parties. The majority opinion held that such contracts were unenforceable because they lacked consideration and did not have signatures from both sides. However, Justice McLean dissented on this ruling, arguing that there should be an exception when a contract is partially performed before either side has raised any objections or defenses against its enforceability. He argued that since part of the agreement had already been completed at this point (the payment for the land), then it would be unfair to allow one party to back out of their obligations after having received some benefit from them. Therefore he concluded that even though no signature existed on behalf of Minturn's side and no consideration was given as part of the original agreement, it should still remain valid due to partial performance being present in this particular situation