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

Crawford v. Halsey

• 1887 • 124 U.S. 648 • Waite Court
In Crawford v. Halsey, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid. The contract in question was between a ship owner, Crawford, and a ship captain, Halsey. Crawford had hired Halsey to take a ship from New York to Liverpool, England. The contract stated that Halsey would receive a certain amount of money for the voyage, and that he would be responsible for any losses or damages to the ship. The Supreme Court held that the contract was...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: 1887
Docket: 155
124 U.S. 648
8 S. Ct. 641
31 L. Ed. 572
1888 U.S. LEXIS 1903

Crawford v. Halsey

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In Crawford v. Halsey, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid. The contract in question was between a ship owner, Crawford, and a ship captain, Halsey. Crawford had hired Halsey to take a ship from New York to Liverpool, England. The contract stated that Halsey would receive a certain amount of money for the voyage, and that he would be responsible for any losses or damages to the ship. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that both parties had agreed to its terms. The Court also noted that the contract was not against public policy, and that it was not unconscionable. The Court concluded that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that Halsey was entitled to the money he was promised.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Crawford v. Halsey, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established law and precedent. He argued that under existing case law, a contract could be enforced even if it had been made without consideration or with an illusory promise of performance on one side. The Court should not have held otherwise simply because there were no written documents evidencing the agreement between the parties; rather, they should have considered all evidence presented by both sides before making their ruling. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that while some courts had previously ruled against enforcing contracts without consideration when fraud was involved, this particular case did not involve any fraudulent behavior on either party's part and thus such a ruling would be inappropriate here. Ultimately he concluded that since there was sufficient evidence to support both parties' claims as well as no indication of fraud or other wrongdoing present in this case, then it should have been up to a jury to decide which version of events actually occurred and whether or not enforcement of the contract at issue was appropriate in light of those facts.

Opinion written by Justice MRWaite
Decided: Feb 20, 1888
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