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

Dulany v. Hodgkin

1809 • 9 U.S. 333 • Marshall Court
Dulany v. Hodgkin was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1809. The dispute arose when William Dulany, an attorney from Maryland, sued Thomas Hodgkin for failing to pay him $1,000 that he had been awarded as compensation for legal services rendered on behalf of Hodgkin's son-in-law. The court found that Dulany had provided sufficient evidence to prove his claim and ordered Hodgkin to pay the amount owed plus interest and costs associated with bringing suit against him. In its...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 Marshall Court
Term: 1809
9 U.S. 333
3 L. Ed. 117
1809 U.S. LEXIS 443

Dulany v. Hodgkin

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

Dulany v. Hodgkin was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1809. The dispute arose when William Dulany, an attorney from Maryland, sued Thomas Hodgkin for failing to pay him $1,000 that he had been awarded as compensation for legal services rendered on behalf of Hodgkin's son-in-law. The court found that Dulany had provided sufficient evidence to prove his claim and ordered Hodgkin to pay the amount owed plus interest and costs associated with bringing suit against him. In its decision, the court also held that attorneys have a right to collect fees due them under contract law principles even if they are not specifically mentioned in any written agreement between parties involved in litigation or other matters requiring legal representation. This ruling established important precedent regarding lawyers' rights to receive payment for their work and set forth clear guidelines about how such disputes should be handled going forward.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In Dulany v. Hodgkin, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration. The majority opinion held that the contract should not be enforced because there was no consideration given for its formation. However, Justice Story dissented from this decision and argued that contracts are binding even if they lack consideration as long as both parties agree to them in good faith and with an intention of fulfilling their obligations under the agreement. He further noted that such agreements were common practice among merchants at the time and should therefore be recognized by courts of law. In conclusion, Justice Story believed that although a lack of consideration may render a contract voidable rather than absolutely void, it does not necessarily make it unenforceable in court.

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