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

William A. Bradley, Plaintiff In Error, Vs. The Washington, Alexandria, And Georgetown Steam Packet Company, Defendants In Error

1839 • 38 U.S. 89 • Taney Court
William A. Bradley brought a case against the Washington, Alexandria, and Georgetown Steam Packet Company for damages incurred when his horse was killed while being transported on one of their boats. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant because they had not been negligent in transporting the horse and could not be held liable for an accident that occurred due to natural causes beyond their control. They also found that Bradley had failed to prove any negligence or fault on behalf...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: 1839
38 U.S. 89
10 L. Ed. 72
1839 U.S. LEXIS 418
Argued: Feb 14, 1839

William A. Bradley, Plaintiff In Error, Vs. The Washington, Alexandria, And Georgetown Steam Packet Company, Defendants In Error

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

William A. Bradley brought a case against the Washington, Alexandria, and Georgetown Steam Packet Company for damages incurred when his horse was killed while being transported on one of their boats. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant because they had not been negligent in transporting the horse and could not be held liable for an accident that occurred due to natural causes beyond their control. They also found that Bradley had failed to prove any negligence or fault on behalf of the company as he did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claim. Ultimately, this ruling established precedent that companies cannot be held responsible for accidents caused by forces outside of their control unless there is clear proof showing otherwise.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In this case, the plaintiff in error, William A. Bradley, argued that he was entitled to a refund of his fare after being refused passage on the Washington Alexandria and Georgetown Steam Packet Company's steamboat due to overcrowding. The majority opinion held that since there was no contract between Bradley and the company for him to be transported at any particular time or place, he had no right to a refund of his fare. However, Justice McLean dissented from this decision arguing that while it is true there was no express contract between Bradley and the company regarding transportation at any particular time or place; however under common law principles such as those found in Trover and Conversion cases where goods are wrongfully taken without consent of an owner they must be returned with damages paid if applicable. In this case since Bradley’s money had been taken by way of payment for transport which never occurred then according to these same common law principles he should have been given back his money plus damages as compensation for not receiving what he paid for - namely passage on their boat.

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