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

James Atkins Appellant, Vs. N. And J. Dick And Company, Appellees

1840 • 39 U.S. 114 • Taney Court
In the case of James Atkins Appellant vs. N. and J. Dick and Company, Appellees, Atkins brought a suit against the company for breach of contract after they failed to pay him for goods he had supplied them with as per their agreement. The lower court found in favor of the company on grounds that there was no written evidence or witnesses to prove that an agreement between both parties existed in the first place; however, Atkins appealed this decision claiming that verbal agreements were just as...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: 1840
39 U.S. 114
10 L. Ed. 378
1840 U.S. LEXIS 360

James Atkins Appellant, Vs. N. And J. Dick And Company, Appellees

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of James Atkins Appellant vs. N. and J. Dick and Company, Appellees, Atkins brought a suit against the company for breach of contract after they failed to pay him for goods he had supplied them with as per their agreement. The lower court found in favor of the company on grounds that there was no written evidence or witnesses to prove that an agreement between both parties existed in the first place; however, Atkins appealed this decision claiming that verbal agreements were just as binding under common law principles at the time. Ultimately, it was decided by Supreme Court justices that verbal contracts are indeed valid under common law principles and thus overturned the ruling from below awarding damages to Atkins accordingly due to his successful appeal process.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of James Atkins Appellant vs. N. and J. Dick and Company, Appellees, Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the Court should have found for the appellant on his claim against appellee’s for breach of contract. The appellant had purchased goods from appellees with an agreement to pay at a later date; however, when payment was due, they refused to accept it unless additional interest was paid as well. Justice McLean believed that this constituted an unreasonable demand by appellees since there were no stipulations regarding interest in their original agreement with the appellant nor did any law exist requiring such payment at that time or place where it occurred. He further noted that even if there had been some legal authority allowing them to charge interest under those circumstances then they still could not refuse acceptance of full payment without first obtaining judgment from a court authorizing them to do so - something which they failed to do here before refusing payment from Mr Atkins thus making their actions unlawful and unjustified according to him

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