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

Samuel H. Early, Plaintiff In Error v. John Rogers, Junior, And Joseph Rogers, Survivors, &C. Of Rogers & Brothers, Defendants

1853 • 57 U.S. 599 • Taney Court
Samuel H. Early brought a case against John Rogers, Jr., and Joseph Rogers, survivors of the business partnership of Rogers & Brothers. The dispute arose from an agreement between Early and the defendants in which he was to receive payment for goods sold to them on credit. When they failed to make payment as agreed upon, Early sued for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that although there were some discrepancies in the evidence presented by both parties regarding certain details about...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: 1853
57 U.S. 599
14 L. Ed. 1074
1850 U.S. LEXIS 1571
Argued: May 16, 1854

Samuel H. Early, Plaintiff In Error v. John Rogers, Junior, And Joseph Rogers, Survivors, &C. Of Rogers & Brothers, Defendants

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

Samuel H. Early brought a case against John Rogers, Jr., and Joseph Rogers, survivors of the business partnership of Rogers & Brothers. The dispute arose from an agreement between Early and the defendants in which he was to receive payment for goods sold to them on credit. When they failed to make payment as agreed upon, Early sued for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that although there were some discrepancies in the evidence presented by both parties regarding certain details about the agreement itself, it was clear that a contract had been formed between them and thus affirmed judgment in favor of Early with damages awarded accordingly.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In this case, the plaintiff Samuel H. Early argued that he was entitled to a debt of $2,000 from Rogers & Brothers due to an agreement between himself and the company's late proprietors. The Supreme Court disagreed with his argument and ruled in favor of John Rogers Jr. and Joseph Rogers as survivors of the company, finding that there was no evidence presented by Early which proved any such agreement existed or had been made binding on either party. Furthermore, they found that even if such an agreement did exist it would be invalid under Maryland law since it lacked consideration for both parties involved in the contract. In conclusion, while sympathizing with Early's situation they ultimately held him liable for costs incurred during litigation as well as damages resulting from delay in payment owed to defendants by virtue of their victory in court proceedings against him.

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