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

Horace H. Day, Plaintiff In Error, v. W. James Woodworth, Miller Turner, William W. Pynchorn, Robert L. Fuller, Andrew Sisson, Harvey Clemence, Thomas Bolton, Merret Bristol, Joseph Bowen, Andrew Elmandorf, Seth G. Pope, Edward Gorham, Ephrai

1851 • 54 U.S. 363 • Taney Court
This Supreme Court case involves Horace H. Day, the plaintiff in error, and nine defendants: W. James Woodworth, Miller Turner, William W. Pynchorn, Robert L. Fuller, Andrew Sisson, Harvey Clemence Thomas Bolton Merret Bristol Joseph Bowen Andrew Elmandorf Seth G Pope Edward Gorham Ephrai. The dispute is over a contract between Day and the defendants for the sale of certain lands located in New York State that was made on June 1st 1848 with an agreement to pay $2 per acre for said land within...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: 1851
54 U.S. 363
14 L. Ed. 181
1851 U.S. LEXIS 864
Argued: Apr 26, 1852

Horace H. Day, Plaintiff In Error, v. W. James Woodworth, Miller Turner, William W. Pynchorn, Robert L. Fuller, Andrew Sisson, Harvey Clemence, Thomas Bolton, Merret Bristol, Joseph Bowen, Andrew Elmandorf, Seth G. Pope, Edward Gorham, Ephrai

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

This Supreme Court case involves Horace H. Day, the plaintiff in error, and nine defendants: W. James Woodworth, Miller Turner, William W. Pynchorn, Robert L. Fuller, Andrew Sisson, Harvey Clemence Thomas Bolton Merret Bristol Joseph Bowen Andrew Elmandorf Seth G Pope Edward Gorham Ephrai. The dispute is over a contract between Day and the defendants for the sale of certain lands located in New York State that was made on June 1st 1848 with an agreement to pay $2 per acre for said land within two years from date of purchase or else forfeit all payments already made as well as any interest accrued thereon up until then. The court found that although some payments had been made by Day prior to expiration of time limit set forth in contract he failed to make full payment before it expired thus forfeiting his right under said contract and rendering him liable for damages sustained by non-payment according to terms agreed upon at time of purchase

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In this case, the plaintiff in error Horace H. Day argued that a deed of trust was invalid because it had not been properly executed and delivered to him. The Supreme Court disagreed with Day's argument, finding that the deed of trust was validly executed and delivered according to its terms. The court held that although there were some discrepancies between the parties' understanding of certain provisions in the deed, these did not affect its validity or enforceability under applicable law. Furthermore, even if one party had acted negligently or fraudulently in executing and delivering the document, such conduct would still be insufficient to render it voidable at law. Therefore, Day's claim failed on all counts and his motion for relief from judgment was denied by a majority opinion written by Justice Catron.

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