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

Charles M'micken, Plaintiff In Error v. Amos Webb, Aaron Smith, And Ira Smith, Defendants

1837 • 36 U.S. 25 • Taney Court
Charles M'Micken brought a case against Amos Webb, Aaron Smith, and Ira Smith to the Supreme Court of the United States. The dispute was over an agreement between M'Micken and the three defendants in which he agreed to pay them for their services as surveyors. According to M'Micken's complaint, he had paid all that was due under this contract but still owed money according to the defendants. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of M'Micken on grounds that there were no facts presented by...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: 1837
36 U.S. 25
9 L. Ed. 618
1837 U.S. LEXIS 162
Argued: Jan 13, 1837

Charles M'micken, Plaintiff In Error v. Amos Webb, Aaron Smith, And Ira Smith, Defendants

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

Charles M'Micken brought a case against Amos Webb, Aaron Smith, and Ira Smith to the Supreme Court of the United States. The dispute was over an agreement between M'Micken and the three defendants in which he agreed to pay them for their services as surveyors. According to M'Micken's complaint, he had paid all that was due under this contract but still owed money according to the defendants. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of M'Micken on grounds that there were no facts presented by either party that could prove any debt or obligation beyond what had already been paid by him. This ruling established precedent for future cases involving contracts where one party claims they are owed more than has been previously agreed upon without providing evidence supporting such a claim.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In Charles M'Micken v. Amos Webb, Aaron Smith, and Ira Smith, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when one of them had died before it was fully executed. The majority opinion held that contracts are not enforceable after death because they cannot be performed by either party. However, Justice McLean dissented from this ruling on the grounds that contracts should remain binding even if one of the parties has passed away as long as there is evidence that both sides intended to enter into an agreement prior to their deaths. He argued that enforcing such agreements would encourage people to fulfill their obligations in good faith and promote fairness in business dealings. Furthermore, he noted that allowing for posthumous enforcement of contracts would prevent fraud or other wrongful acts which might otherwise occur due to lack of accountability after death.

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