Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Alexander Dennistoun, John Dennistoun, William Myline, And William Wood, Partners, Under The Style Of A. Dennistoun And Co., Plaintiffs, v. Roger Stewart

1855 • 59 U.S. 565 • Taney Court
Alexander Dennistoun, John Dennistoun, William Myline and William Wood were partners in a business known as A. Dennistoun and Co. They brought suit against Roger Stewart for breach of contract. The plaintiffs alleged that they had entered into an agreement with the defendant to purchase certain goods from him at a fixed price but he refused to deliver them after being paid in full. The Supreme Court found in favor of the plaintiffs, ruling that the defendant was liable for damages due to his...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Taney Court
Term: 1855
59 U.S. 565
15 L. Ed. 489
1855 U.S. LEXIS 734
Argued: Apr 15, 1856

Alexander Dennistoun, John Dennistoun, William Myline, And William Wood, Partners, Under The Style Of A. Dennistoun And Co., Plaintiffs, v. Roger Stewart

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

Alexander Dennistoun, John Dennistoun, William Myline and William Wood were partners in a business known as A. Dennistoun and Co. They brought suit against Roger Stewart for breach of contract. The plaintiffs alleged that they had entered into an agreement with the defendant to purchase certain goods from him at a fixed price but he refused to deliver them after being paid in full. The Supreme Court found in favor of the plaintiffs, ruling that the defendant was liable for damages due to his failure to fulfill his contractual obligations. Furthermore, it held that any subsequent contracts between parties must be based on good faith and fair dealing or else they will not be enforced by law. This case serves as an important reminder of how essential it is for all parties involved in commercial transactions to adhere strictly to their agreements so as not avoid costly legal disputes down the line

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In Alexander Dennistoun, et al. v. Roger Stewart, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties that had been partially performed by one of them could be enforced against the other party who had not yet fulfilled their obligations under it. The majority opinion held that such contracts were enforceable and granted judgment in favor of the plaintiffs; however, Justice McLean dissented from this decision on the grounds that there was no consideration for either party's promise and thus no valid contract existed between them. He argued that since both parties had only partially performed their respective promises at the time they entered into agreement with each other, neither side should be allowed to recover damages or obtain any benefit from it as a result of its partial performance alone.

Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms