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

Allen v. Mcveigh

• 1882 • 107 U.S. 433 • Waite Court
In Allen v. McVeigh, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The contract in question was between a husband and wife, and it provided that the husband would pay the wife a certain sum of money each month for the rest of her life. The husband had failed to make the payments, and the wife sued to enforce the contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract...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 Waite Court
Term: 1882
Docket: 223
107 U.S. 433
2 S. Ct. 558
27 L. Ed. 572
1882 U.S. LEXIS 1234
Argued: Mar 30, 1883

Allen v. Mcveigh

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In Allen v. McVeigh, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The contract in question was between a husband and wife, and it provided that the husband would pay the wife a certain sum of money each month for the rest of her life. The husband had failed to make the payments, and the wife sued to enforce the contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was not against public policy, and that it was not contrary to any law or statute. The Court also noted that the contract was not unconscionable, and that it was not against the interests of either party. The Court concluded that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that the wife was entitled to the payments she was promised.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Allen v. McVeigh, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had failed to consider an important point: whether or not the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages from defendant for his breach of contract. The majority held that since there was no express agreement between parties as to how much money should be paid upon completion of work, and because it could not be determined what amount would have been agreed upon if such an agreement had existed, then no recovery could be made by plaintiff against defendant. However, Justice Field disagreed with this conclusion and argued that even though there may have been no express agreement regarding payment amounts, it is still possible for a court to determine what amount would have likely been agreed upon by both parties based on evidence presented at trial. He further noted that when one party breaches their duty under a contract they are liable for all resulting damages regardless of any lack of explicit terms in said contract. Therefore he concluded that plaintiff should indeed receive some form compensation from defendant due to his breach and thus dissented from the decision reached by the majority

Opinion written by Justice MRWaite
Decided: Apr 16, 1883
PDF viewer is not available.
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