Bignall v. Gould
| Decision Date | 20 December 1886 |
| Citation | 30 L.Ed. 491,7 S.Ct. 294,119 U.S. 495 |
| Parties | BIGNALL v. GOULD |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This was an action, brought in September, 1881, by a citizen of Missouri against a citizen of New York upon the following bond, signed and sealed by the defendant:
'Know all men that I, James H. Gould, of Seneca Falls, New York, am held and firmly bound to Moses C. Bignall in the penal sum of ten thousand dollars lawful money, liquidated damages, to the payment of which I bind myself, my heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, firmly by these presents.
'Sealed with my seal, at the city of St. Louis and state of Missouri, this seventh day of April, A. D. 1879.
'The condition of this obligation is such that whereas, on the first day of April, 1878, the said Moses C. Bignall became unable to pay and satisfy all his just debts and liabilities; and whereas, the Gould Manufacturing Company, of Seneca Falls aforesaid, was one of the creditors of the said Moses C. Bignall; and whereas, the said Gould Manufacturing Company, Mrs. Hannah B. Gould, of Seneca Falls, and Angus McDonald, of Rochester, New York, became the assignees by purchase of a large number and amount of the said debts and claims then existing against the said Moses C. Bignall; and whereas, said last-named parties, or either of them, may deem it to their interest to become the assignees of other of said debts and claims now existing against said Moses C. Bignall now, therefore, if the said Gould Manufacturing Company, the said Hannah B. Gould, and the said Angus McDonald shall acquit, release, and discharge the said Moses C. Bignall, within one year from the date hereof, of all and singular the debts and claims aforesaid, that have been assigned to them, or that may hereafter be assigned to them, or either of them, by good and sufficient release in writing, to be made by them, and to be delivered by them to said Moses C. Bignall, then this obligation to be void; otherwise it shall remain in full force and virtue.'
The petition alleged that the defendant executed the bond at its date; that the plaintiff was then owing to divers persons debts amounting to about $50,000, including one to the Gould Manufacturing Company of about $7,000, and that Hannah B. Gould held assignments from different persons of many of those debts to the amount of about $26,000, (a list of 10 of which was annexed, varying from $147.23 to $8,117,) and Angus McDonald held assignments of like debts to the amount of about $6,000, (a list of 13 of which was annexed, varying from $9.80 to $1,445.52;) that there had been a breach of the bond, in that more than a year had elapsed since its execution, yet neither the Gould Manufacturing Company nor Gould nor McDonald had acquitted, released, or discharged the plaintiff from any of those debts, and that by reason of this breach the plaintiff had been damaged in the sum of $10,000.
The answer admitted these allegations, except that it denied that the plaintiff had been damaged in the sum of $10,000, or any other sum; and alleged that the plaintiff, under proceedings in bankruptcy pending at the date of the bond, had since obtained a certificate of discharge, whereby all his debts mentioned in the petition were discharged. The plaintiff filed a replication, denying all the allegations of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Northwestern Terra Cotta Co. v. Caldwell
... ... estimated amount of freight was $20,872.50. It was held ... clearly not a stipulation for liquidated damages ... In ... Bignall v. Gould, 119 U.S. 495, 7 Sup.Ct. 294, 30 ... L.Ed. 491, a bond was given in the penal sum of $10,000 ... liquidated damages, conditioned that if ... ...
-
Sun Printing Publishing Association v. William Moore
...780, 786, 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 878; Watts v. Camors, 115 U. S. 353, 360, 29 L. ed. 406, 408, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 91; Bignall v. Gould, 119 U. S. 495, 30 L. ed. 491, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 294. The last-cited case illustrates the character of disproportion apparent on the face of a contract which has influe......
-
Interstate Indus. Uniform Rental Service, Inc. v. Couri Pontiac, Inc.
...the label 'liquidated damages' will not prevent the Court from calling it a penalty and refusing to enforce it. Bignall v. Gould, 119 U.S. 495, 7 S.Ct. 294, 30 L.Ed. 491 (1886). Applying the general principle that liquidated damages must be a reasonable forecast of the injury resulting from......
-
State v. Vending Mach. Corp.
...(79 Mass.) 42; Keck v. Bieber, 148 Pa. 645, 24 A. 170, 33 Am. St. Rep. 846. That doctrine was applied by the Supreme Court in Bignall v. Gould, 119 U.S. 497. 7 S. Ct. 294, 30 L. Ed. 491 (1886). But in the case at bar. as the bond was given to the government, it would not be in the least mat......