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

Buffington v. Harvey

• 1877 • 95 U.S. 99 • Waite Court
Buffington v. Harvey was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved a contract between William Buffington and William Harvey, in which Buffington agreed to pay Harvey a certain amount of money for the use of a certain piece of land. Harvey argued that the contract was invalid because it had not been properly executed. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid, and that Harvey was entitled to the...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: 1877
Docket: 52
95 U.S. 99
24 L. Ed. 381
1877 U.S. LEXIS 2139

Buffington v. Harvey

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

Buffington v. Harvey was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved a contract between William Buffington and William Harvey, in which Buffington agreed to pay Harvey a certain amount of money for the use of a certain piece of land. Harvey argued that the contract was invalid because it had not been properly executed. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid, and that Harvey was entitled to the money he was promised. The Court reasoned that the contract was valid because it had been signed by both parties, and that the terms of the contract were clear and unambiguous. The Court also noted that the contract had been in effect for several years, and that both parties had acted in accordance with its terms. The Court concluded that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that Harvey was entitled to the money he was promised.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Buffington v. Harvey, a case concerning whether or not an individual was entitled to compensation for services rendered as a special commissioner of insolvency. The majority held that the individual was not entitled to such compensation because he had failed to comply with certain statutory requirements. Justice Field disagreed and argued that although there were some technical errors made by the petitioner, they did not amount to sufficient grounds for denying him his right to payment. He further noted that it would be unjust and inequitable if these minor mistakes resulted in depriving him of what he had earned through hard work and labor on behalf of creditors who were otherwise unable to collect their debts due from insolvent debtors. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that since no one else suffered any harm due to these technical errors, it would be wrong for them alone serve as justification for withholding payment from someone who provided valuable service at great personal expense without any expectation of reward other than what was promised by law.

Opinion written by Justice JPBradley
Decided: Nov 05, 1877
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