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

Crampton v. Zabriskie

• 1879 • 101 U.S. 601 • Waite Court
Crampton v. Zabriskie was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a party could be held liable for a breach of contract when the contract was not in writing. The case involved a dispute between two parties, Crampton and Zabriskie, over a contract for the sale of a horse. Crampton had agreed to purchase the horse from Zabriskie for a certain price, but Zabriskie refused to deliver the horse after Crampton had paid the agreed-upon price. The Supreme Court held that...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: 1879
Docket: 1070
101 U.S. 601
25 L. Ed. 1070
1879 U.S. LEXIS 1962

Crampton v. Zabriskie

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

Crampton v. Zabriskie was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a party could be held liable for a breach of contract when the contract was not in writing. The case involved a dispute between two parties, Crampton and Zabriskie, over a contract for the sale of a horse. Crampton had agreed to purchase the horse from Zabriskie for a certain price, but Zabriskie refused to deliver the horse after Crampton had paid the agreed-upon price. The Supreme Court held that Crampton could recover damages from Zabriskie for breach of contract, even though the contract was not in writing. The Court reasoned that the parties had agreed to the terms of the contract, and that the agreement was binding even though it was not in writing. The Court also noted that the parties had acted in reliance on the agreement, and that Crampton had paid the agreed-upon price for the horse. The Court's decision in Crampton v. Zabriskie established that parties can be held liable for breach of contract even when the contract is not in writing. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and has been used to support the notion that parties can be held liable for breach of contract even when the contract is not in writing.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In Crampton v. Zabriskie, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a judgment of foreclosure and sale in favor of the plaintiff should be set aside due to irregularities in the proceedings leading up to it. The majority opinion held that there were no such irregularities and that therefore, the judgment should stand. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that certain procedural errors had occurred during trial which rendered it unfair; secondly, he asserted that even if these errors did not invalidate the entire proceeding they still warranted setting aside some portions of it as being unjust or inequitable. Ultimately then, Justice Field believed that while some parts of the judgment may have been valid others needed to be overturned so as to ensure justice for all parties involved.

Opinion written by Justice SJField
Decided: May 10, 1880
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