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

Carpentier v. Montgomery Et Al.

• 1871 • 80 U.S. 480 • Chase Court
Carpentier v. Montgomery et al. was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1871. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a steamboat. The plaintiff, Carpentier, had entered into a contract with the defendants, Montgomery et al., to purchase a steamboat for $2,000. Carpentier paid the full amount, but the defendants refused to deliver the boat. Carpentier then sued the defendants for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract...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 Chase Court
Term: 1871
80 U.S. 480
20 L. Ed. 698
1871 U.S. LEXIS 1363
Argued: Apr 04, 1872

Carpentier v. Montgomery Et Al.

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

Carpentier v. Montgomery et al. was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1871. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a steamboat. The plaintiff, Carpentier, had entered into a contract with the defendants, Montgomery et al., to purchase a steamboat for $2,000. Carpentier paid the full amount, but the defendants refused to deliver the boat. Carpentier then sued the defendants for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that the defendants were liable for damages. The Court also held that the defendants had acted in bad faith by refusing to deliver the boat, and that they were liable for punitive damages. The Court awarded Carpentier $2,000 in compensatory damages and $1,000 in punitive damages. The Court's decision in this case established the principle that a contract is binding and enforceable, and that a party who breaches a contract is liable for damages. It also established the principle that a party who acts in bad faith may be liable for punitive damages.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In Carpentier v. Montgomery et al., the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a non-resident against another non-resident in which the cause of action arose out of events that occurred outside of the state's borders. The majority opinion held that, since both parties were non-residents and no part of the transaction took place within its borders, it did not have jurisdiction over such an action. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that states should be able to exercise their power as sovereigns and extend their judicial authority beyond their own boundaries when necessary for justice to be done. He argued further that if states are unable to do so then they will become powerless in cases where one party is a resident and another is not; thus allowing injustice or fraudulence on behalf of those who reside elsewhere but still owe obligations under contracts made within its territory.

Opinion written by Justice JPBradley
Decided: May 06, 1872
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