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

Chubb v. Upton

• 1877 • 95 U.S. 665 • Waite Court
In Chubb v. Upton, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The contract in question was between Chubb and Upton, and it stated that Upton would pay Chubb a certain amount of money in exchange for Chubb's promise to pay Upton a certain amount of money at a later date. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the contract was not void for lack of consideration,...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: 124
95 U.S. 665
24 L. Ed. 523
1877 U.S. LEXIS 2219
Argued: Dec 03, 1877

Chubb v. Upton

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In Chubb v. Upton, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The contract in question was between Chubb and Upton, and it stated that Upton would pay Chubb a certain amount of money in exchange for Chubb's promise to pay Upton a certain amount of money at a later date. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the contract was not void for lack of consideration, as the parties had exchanged promises of future performance. The Court also held that the contract was not void for lack of mutuality of obligation, as the parties had agreed to exchange promises of future performance. The Court further held that the contract was not void for lack of capacity, as both parties had the legal capacity to enter into the contract. Finally, the Court held that the contract was not void for lack of consideration, as the parties had exchanged promises of future performance. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Chubb and Upton was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the contract was not void for lack of consideration, mutuality of obligation, capacity, or consideration.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In Chubb v. Upton, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when one of the parties had died before it was fully executed. The majority opinion held that since only part of the agreement had been completed, and because there were no witnesses to attest to its validity, it could not be enforced. Justice Field dissented from this ruling on the grounds that in cases such as these where both parties have acted in good faith and made substantial progress towards completing an agreement prior to one party's death, equity should prevail over strict legal principles. He argued that if both sides had intended for their actions to constitute a binding contract then they should be allowed to enforce it even though all formalities may not have been observed at the time of execution due to circumstances beyond their control.

Opinion written by Justice WHunt
Decided: Dec 17, 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