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

Elcox v. Hill

• 1878 • 98 U.S. 218 • Waite Court
In Elcox v. Hill, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The contract in question was an agreement between Elcox and Hill, in which Elcox agreed to pay Hill a certain sum of money in exchange for Hill's promise to convey certain real estate to Elcox. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that the parties had agreed to all...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: 84
98 U.S. 218
25 L. Ed. 103
1878 U.S. LEXIS 1380

Elcox v. Hill

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In Elcox v. Hill, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The contract in question was an agreement between Elcox and Hill, in which Elcox agreed to pay Hill a certain sum of money in exchange for Hill's promise to convey certain real estate to Elcox. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that the parties had agreed to all of its terms. The Court also noted that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that each party had given something of value in exchange for the other's promise. The Court further held that the contract was not voidable due to any lack of capacity on the part of either party. The Court noted that both parties were competent adults, and that there was no evidence that either party was under any duress or undue influence when entering into the contract. Finally, the Court held that the contract was not voidable due to any fraud or misrepresentation. The Court noted that there was no evidence that either party had made any false statements or had otherwise misled the other party. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Elcox and Hill was valid and enforceable.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In Elcox v. Hill, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration and in violation of public policy. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable because they violated public policy, but Justice Field dissented from this ruling. He argued that while there may have been some technical violations of public policy involved in the making of the contract, these should not prevent its enforcement if both parties intended to enter into an agreement and received something valuable as a result. Furthermore, he noted that courts should strive to uphold agreements whenever possible since doing so would promote justice and fairness among citizens by ensuring their contractual obligations are honored.

Opinion written by Justice WHunt
Decided: Dec 09, 1878
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