Fernald v. Ladd
Amos Fernald versus Jonathan Ladd
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
By the court.
We entertain no doubt, that an attorney may be ordered to perform a contract made by him in court, in relation to an action, and that the performance of the order may be enforced by an attachment.
But we should not he disposed to adopt this method, to enforce the performance of a contract, except in very clear cases. The only instances in which we should be disposed to interfere in this way, would he those where the contract had been reduced to writing, and put on file, or where it had been entered upon the docket by the clerk.
*371 But in cases where the terms of the contract are in dispute, where the contract was not at the time reduced to writing, but left to be collected from the recollection, or loose memoranda of those who made it, we are inclined to leave those who may think themselves aggrieved by the breach of such contracts, to their remedy by action. 3 B. & A. 47, Burrell v. Jones; 1 B. & C. 160 Iveson v. Conington; 2 Cowen 460, Waring v. Baret; 2 ditto, 589; 3 Bing. 70, Hullings v. Jones ; 2 N. H. Rep. 520 , Alton v. Gilmanton; 5 Johns. 368. Rule discharged.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.