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

Bolles v. Brimfield

• 1886 • 120 U.S. 759 • Waite Court
Bolles v. Brimfield is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1887. The case involved a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a piece of land in Massachusetts. The plaintiff, Bolles, claimed that he had purchased the land from the defendant, Brimfield, in 1876. Brimfield, however, argued that he had never sold the land to Bolles and that he was still the rightful owner. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Bolles, ruling that he had acquired the land through a...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: 1886
Docket: 279
120 U.S. 759
7 S. Ct. 736
30 L. Ed. 786
1887 U.S. LEXIS 2014

Bolles v. Brimfield

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

Bolles v. Brimfield is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1887. The case involved a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a piece of land in Massachusetts. The plaintiff, Bolles, claimed that he had purchased the land from the defendant, Brimfield, in 1876. Brimfield, however, argued that he had never sold the land to Bolles and that he was still the rightful owner. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Bolles, ruling that he had acquired the land through a valid purchase. The Court found that Bolles had provided sufficient evidence to prove that he had purchased the land from Brimfield, including a deed of sale and a receipt for the purchase price. The Court also noted that Brimfield had failed to provide any evidence to support his claim of ownership. As a result, the Court held that Bolles was the rightful owner of the land.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In Bolles v. Brimfield, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a non-resident plaintiff against a resident defendant. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction in this case because it lacked personal service of process on the defendant and therefore could not exercise its power over him. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that due process requires only reasonable notice of suit and does not require actual service upon defendants who are residents of the forum state. He argued that since there was no dispute as to where the parties resided or what their relationship was with each other, there should be sufficient notice given through publication or posting so long as it is reasonably calculated to give such information to those affected by it. Furthermore, he noted that if states were allowed to deny justice based on technicalities like lack of personal service then they would be able to avoid their obligations under contracts made with out-of-state citizens which would lead them into conflict with other states' laws and policies regarding interstate commerce.

Opinion written by Justice JHarlan(1)
Decided: Mar 07, 1887
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