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

Clinton Et Al. v. Englebrecht

• 1871 • 80 U.S. 434 • Chase Court
Clinton et al. v. Englebrecht was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1871. The case involved a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a piece of land in the state of Illinois. The plaintiff, Clinton, claimed that he had purchased the land from the defendant, Englebrecht, and that Englebrecht had failed to deliver a deed to the property. Englebrecht argued that he had never sold the land to Clinton and that the deed was never delivered. The Supreme Court ultimately...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. 434
20 L. Ed. 659
1871 U.S. LEXIS 1357
Argued: Mar 07, 1872

Clinton Et Al. v. Englebrecht

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

Clinton et al. v. Englebrecht was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1871. The case involved a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a piece of land in the state of Illinois. The plaintiff, Clinton, claimed that he had purchased the land from the defendant, Englebrecht, and that Englebrecht had failed to deliver a deed to the property. Englebrecht argued that he had never sold the land to Clinton and that the deed was never delivered. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Clinton, finding that Englebrecht had indeed sold the land to Clinton and that Englebrecht had failed to deliver the deed. The Court held that Englebrecht was liable for the damages caused by his failure to deliver the deed, and ordered him to pay Clinton the amount of the purchase price plus interest. The Court's decision in this case established the principle that a party who fails to deliver a deed to a piece of property is liable for the damages caused by their failure to do so. This principle has been applied in numerous cases since then, and is still used today.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In Clinton et al. v. Englebrecht, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by citizens of one state against citizens of another in which the amount in controversy exceeded $500 and did not involve real estate or title to land. The majority opinion held that such cases were within the exclusive jurisdiction of federal courts, while Justice Field dissented on behalf of himself and two other justices. He argued that Congress had no authority under Article III Section 2 Clause 1 (the "diversity clause") to restrict a state's power to hear civil actions between its own citizens as well as those from other states where there is diversity in citizenship but no matter involving real estate or title to land involved; he further noted that this restriction would be contrary both to precedent established prior to passage of the Judiciary Act and also common law principles regarding judicial powers vested with each individual state government.

Opinion written by Justice SPChase
Decided: Apr 15, 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