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

Fertilizing Company v. Hyde Park

• 1878 • 97 U.S. 659 • Waite Court
In Fertilizing Company v. Hyde Park, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between a fertilizing company and a town was valid. The fertilizing company had contracted with the town of Hyde Park to supply it with fertilizer for a period of five years. The contract provided that the town would pay the company a certain amount of money each year for the fertilizer. The town of Hyde Park refused to pay the company for the fertilizer, claiming that the...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: 5
97 U.S. 659
24 L. Ed. 1036
1878 U.S. LEXIS 1495
Argued: Oct 17, 1878

Fertilizing Company v. Hyde Park

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In Fertilizing Company v. Hyde Park, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between a fertilizing company and a town was valid. The fertilizing company had contracted with the town of Hyde Park to supply it with fertilizer for a period of five years. The contract provided that the town would pay the company a certain amount of money each year for the fertilizer. The town of Hyde Park refused to pay the company for the fertilizer, claiming that the contract was invalid because it had not been approved by the town council. The fertilizing company sued the town for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was not required to be approved by the town council in order to be valid. The Court also noted that the town had accepted the benefits of the contract by using the fertilizer, and thus was obligated to pay for it. The Court held that the town was liable for breach of contract and ordered it to pay the fertilizing company the amount due under the contract.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In Fertilizing Company v. Hyde Park, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made in violation of an existing state statute. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable and thus the plaintiff's claim failed. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on the grounds that while he agreed with the majority's interpretation of applicable law, he felt that enforcing such contracts would serve as a deterrent against future violations of statutes by those who might otherwise believe they can escape liability for their actions simply because they have entered into a contract with another party. He argued further that if these types of agreements are allowed to stand then it will encourage people to enter into similar arrangements without fear or consequence and ultimately undermine public policy which is intended to protect citizens from harm caused by illegal activities.

Opinion written by Justice NHSwayne
Decided: Nov 11, 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