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

Adams, Cunningham And Company v. Calvin Jones

1838 • 37 U.S. 207 • Taney Court
Adams, Cunningham and Company v. Calvin Jones was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1838. The dispute involved an unpaid debt of $1,000 that Adams, Cunningham and Company had loaned to Calvin Jones for his purchase of slaves. When Jones failed to pay back the debt as agreed upon in their contract, Adams, Cunningham and Company sued him for payment plus interest at 10 percent per annum from December 1st 1835 until paid off. The court found that although there were no written...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: 1838
37 U.S. 207
9 L. Ed. 1058
1838 U.S. LEXIS 352

Adams, Cunningham And Company v. Calvin Jones

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

Adams, Cunningham and Company v. Calvin Jones was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1838. The dispute involved an unpaid debt of $1,000 that Adams, Cunningham and Company had loaned to Calvin Jones for his purchase of slaves. When Jones failed to pay back the debt as agreed upon in their contract, Adams, Cunningham and Company sued him for payment plus interest at 10 percent per annum from December 1st 1835 until paid off. The court found that although there were no written documents or witnesses present when the agreement between both parties was made verbally on November 30th 1834; it could be inferred from other evidence presented during trial that such an agreement did exist between them prior to December 1st 1835 which would make it legally binding under common law principles of contract formation. Therefore they ruled in favor of Adams, Cunningham and Company awarding them damages with interest as requested by their complaint against Calvin Jones for nonpayment of his outstanding debt obligation according to their verbal agreement made on November 30th 1834

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In Adams, Cunningham and Company v. Calvin Jones, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced if it had been made without consideration. The majority opinion held that the contract should not be enforced because there was no consideration given by either party in exchange for its performance. However, Justice McLean dissented from this decision and argued that contracts can still be enforceable even when they are made without any form of consideration being exchanged. He reasoned that such agreements were binding on both parties as long as they were entered into with mutual consent and good faith intentions to perform their respective obligations under the agreement. Furthermore, he stated that public policy favored enforcing these types of contracts since it would encourage people to enter into them more freely than if there was always an expectation of some kind of compensation or benefit in return for entering into an agreement with another person or entity.

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