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

Alexander Dennistoun, John Dennistoun, William Craig Mylne, And William Wood, Partners, Under The Style Of A. Dennistoun And Company, Plaintiffs In Error, v. Roger Stewart

1854 • 58 U.S. 606 • Taney Court
Alexander Dennistoun, John Dennistoun, William Craig Mylne and William Wood were partners under the style of A. Dennistoun & Company who brought a case against Roger Stewart to the US Supreme Court. The plaintiffs argued that they had purchased goods from Stewart in 1848 with an agreement for payment at a later date but that he had failed to deliver them as promised. They sought damages for breach of contract and requested restitution of their money plus interest due on it since 1849 when they...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: 1854
58 U.S. 606
15 L. Ed. 228
1854 U.S. LEXIS 547
Argued: Mar 01, 1855

Alexander Dennistoun, John Dennistoun, William Craig Mylne, And William Wood, Partners, Under The Style Of A. Dennistoun And Company, Plaintiffs In Error, v. Roger Stewart

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

Alexander Dennistoun, John Dennistoun, William Craig Mylne and William Wood were partners under the style of A. Dennistoun & Company who brought a case against Roger Stewart to the US Supreme Court. The plaintiffs argued that they had purchased goods from Stewart in 1848 with an agreement for payment at a later date but that he had failed to deliver them as promised. They sought damages for breach of contract and requested restitution of their money plus interest due on it since 1849 when they paid him in full according to his promise. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering Stewart to pay them back all monies owed plus interest accrued since 1849 or face imprisonment until such time as he did so.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Alexander Dennistoun, John Dennistoun, William Craig Mylne and William Wood v. Roger Stewart, the dissenting opinion was that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written. The majority opinion had held that because one party to the contract had failed to perform their obligations in accordance with its terms due to circumstances outside of their control (namely an act of God), they were not liable for damages resulting from breach of contract. However, Justice McLean argued that this would set a dangerous precedent by allowing parties who fail to fulfill contractual obligations due to external forces beyond their control off the hook without any consequences or liability for damages incurred by other parties involved in said contracts. He further argued that if such a principle were adopted it could lead people into entering into contracts which may never be fulfilled and thus create uncertainty in commercial transactions and ultimately harm commerce itself.

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