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

Pierre A. Berthold And Others, Plaintiffs In Error, v. James Mcdonald And Mary Mcree

1859 • 63 U.S. 334 • Taney Court
In the case of Pierre A. Berthold and Others v. James McDonald and Mary McRee, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties was valid or not. The plaintiffs argued that they had entered into an agreement to purchase land from McDonald and McRee for $3,000 in cash plus other considerations such as stock certificates, but that the defendants had refused to accept payment on those terms. The court found in favor of the plaintiffs, ruling that their offer...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: 1859
63 U.S. 334
16 L. Ed. 318
1859 U.S. LEXIS 732
Argued: Jan 10, 1860

Pierre A. Berthold And Others, Plaintiffs In Error, v. James Mcdonald And Mary Mcree

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Pierre A. Berthold and Others v. James McDonald and Mary McRee, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties was valid or not. The plaintiffs argued that they had entered into an agreement to purchase land from McDonald and McRee for $3,000 in cash plus other considerations such as stock certificates, but that the defendants had refused to accept payment on those terms. The court found in favor of the plaintiffs, ruling that their offer constituted a binding contract under Louisiana law since it included all necessary elements including consideration (the money) and mutual assent (both parties agreeing). Furthermore, because there was no evidence presented by either side indicating any fraud or misrepresentation on behalf of either party involved in this transaction, the court held that both sides were bound by its terms.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Pierre A. Berthold and Others v. James McDonald and Mary McRee, the dissenting opinion argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written regardless of any subsequent changes in circumstances or conditions. The majority had ruled that an agreement to purchase land could not be enforced because it was made before Louisiana became part of the United States, but after this change in status occurred, one party refused to fulfill their obligations under the contract due to changed economic conditions. The dissent disagreed with this ruling on grounds that contracts are binding even when they become more difficult or expensive for one side than originally anticipated; if such agreements were allowed to be broken so easily then no contracts would ever have any real value or meaning since each party could simply back out whenever things got tough. Furthermore, enforcing a contract is necessary for maintaining public confidence in business transactions and upholding justice by ensuring both sides abide by what has been agreed upon rather than allowing either side to take advantage of changing situations at will without consequence.

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