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

De Treville v. Smalls

• 1878 • 98 U.S. 517 • Waite Court
De Treville v. Smalls is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1878. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a slave. The plaintiff, De Treville, was the owner of a slave named Smalls. He had entered into a contract with the defendant, also named Smalls, to sell the slave for a certain sum of money. The defendant had paid the agreed-upon sum, but the plaintiff refused to deliver the slave. The defendant then brought suit against the...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: 1878
Docket: 102
98 U.S. 517
25 L. Ed. 174
1878 U.S. LEXIS 1414
Argued: Dec 20, 1878

De Treville v. Smalls

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

De Treville v. Smalls is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1878. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a slave. The plaintiff, De Treville, was the owner of a slave named Smalls. He had entered into a contract with the defendant, also named Smalls, to sell the slave for a certain sum of money. The defendant had paid the agreed-upon sum, but the plaintiff refused to deliver the slave. The defendant then brought suit against the plaintiff for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the sale of slaves was a common practice in the United States at the time, and that the contract was not contrary to public policy. The Court also held that the plaintiff was liable for breach of contract, and that the defendant was entitled to damages. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant was valid and enforceable, and that the plaintiff was liable for breach of contract. The Court also held that the defendant was entitled to damages.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In De Treville v. Smalls, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration. The majority opinion held that the contract in question was not enforceable because there had been no consideration given for its formation. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that contracts should be enforced even if they are made without any form of consideration as long as both parties have agreed to them freely and voluntarily. He further stated that such agreements were legally binding under common law principles and should not be invalidated simply because one party did not provide something of value in exchange for entering into the agreement. Ultimately, Justice Field's dissenting opinion failed to sway the majority who decided against enforcing the contract due to lack of consideration being provided by either party at its inception.

Opinion written by Justice WStrong
Decided: Jan 20, 1879
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