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

Field And Others v. Holland And Others

1810 • 10 U.S. 8 • Marshall Court
Field and Others v. Holland and Others was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1810. The dispute arose when two individuals, Field and another, purchased land from the state of Georgia that had been previously granted to certain Creek Indians under an agreement with the federal government. When they attempted to take possession of their property, they were prevented from doing so by Holland and others who claimed title under a later grant issued by Georgia which purported to...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: 1810
10 U.S. 8
3 L. Ed. 136
1810 U.S. LEXIS 314
Argued: Feb 07, 1810

Field And Others v. Holland And Others

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

Field and Others v. Holland and Others was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1810. The dispute arose when two individuals, Field and another, purchased land from the state of Georgia that had been previously granted to certain Creek Indians under an agreement with the federal government. When they attempted to take possession of their property, they were prevented from doing so by Holland and others who claimed title under a later grant issued by Georgia which purported to supersede the earlier one made between the Creeks and federal government. The Supreme Court held that while states have authority over lands within their boundaries, it is subject to any prior grants or agreements made with Indian tribes as recognized by Congress; thus Georgia's subsequent grant could not override its earlier treaty obligations with respect to this particular parcel of land. The court further noted that such treaties are considered “the supreme law of the land” according to Article VI of Constitution; therefore all parties must abide them regardless if there is conflicting state legislation on same matter at hand.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In Field and Others v. Holland and Others, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal court had jurisdiction over a case involving an alleged breach of contract between citizens of different states. The majority opinion held that the federal courts did not have jurisdiction in this matter because it involved private rights which were traditionally within the purview of state law. Justice Johnson dissented from this decision, arguing that Congress had granted exclusive original jurisdiction to the federal courts for cases arising under contracts made between citizens of different states, as provided by Article III Section 2 Clause 1 of the Constitution. He argued further that if such matters were left solely to state law then there would be no uniformity or consistency in their resolution across all states; thus leaving parties without any remedy when disputes arose concerning interstate contracts.

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