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

Andrew Erwin, Appellant, v. William S. Parham, James Dick, And Henry R. W. Hill

1851 • 53 U.S. 197 • Taney Court
Andrew Erwin, appellant, brought a case against William S. Parham, James Dick and Henry R. W. Hill in the Supreme Court of the United States to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract between himself and the defendants. The dispute arose when Erwin entered into an agreement with Parham to purchase certain lands from him at a specified price but was unable to pay it due to financial difficulties caused by his creditors’ interference with his property rights. The court held that...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: 1851
53 U.S. 197
13 L. Ed. 952
1851 U.S. LEXIS 649
Argued: Jan 23, 1852

Andrew Erwin, Appellant, v. William S. Parham, James Dick, And Henry R. W. Hill

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

Andrew Erwin, appellant, brought a case against William S. Parham, James Dick and Henry R. W. Hill in the Supreme Court of the United States to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract between himself and the defendants. The dispute arose when Erwin entered into an agreement with Parham to purchase certain lands from him at a specified price but was unable to pay it due to financial difficulties caused by his creditors’ interference with his property rights. The court held that although Erwin had not fully performed his part of the bargain as required by law, he was still entitled to receive compensation for any losses suffered as a result of Parham's failure or refusal to perform on their agreement; thus affirming that parties must be held accountable for their contractual obligations even if they are unable or unwilling fulfill them completely due to outside influences beyond their control such as creditor interference in this case.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Andrew Erwin v. William S. Parham, James Dick, and Henry R. W. Hill, Justice McLean wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on an erroneous interpretation of Georgia law regarding contracts between minors and adults for goods or services provided by the minor to the adult. He noted that under Georgia law at this time, such contracts were voidable but not necessarily void; thus any contract made with a minor could be voided if it was found to be unfair or unconscionable when examined upon reaching adulthood by either party involved in said contract. Furthermore, Justice McLean argued that even if there had been some form of fraud committed against Erwin as a minor when entering into his agreement with Parham et al., it would still have been necessary for him to prove damages resulting from said fraud before being able to recover anything from them as compensation for those damages - something which he failed to do in this particular case according to both state and federal laws governing civil actions at this time period

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