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

Thomas Griffin And Hugh Ervin v. Robert Thompson

1844 • 43 U.S. 244 • Taney Court
In Thomas Griffin and Hugh Ervin v. Robert Thompson, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a contract between two parties was valid even if it had been made without consideration. The case involved an agreement between Griffin and Ervin to buy land from Thompson in exchange for $1,000. When they failed to pay on time, Thompson sued them for breach of contract. The court found that although there was no consideration given by either party at the time of making the agreement, it still...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: 1844
43 U.S. 244
11 L. Ed. 253
1844 U.S. LEXIS 328

Thomas Griffin And Hugh Ervin v. Robert Thompson

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In Thomas Griffin and Hugh Ervin v. Robert Thompson, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a contract between two parties was valid even if it had been made without consideration. The case involved an agreement between Griffin and Ervin to buy land from Thompson in exchange for $1,000. When they failed to pay on time, Thompson sued them for breach of contract. The court found that although there was no consideration given by either party at the time of making the agreement, it still constituted a binding contract because both parties agreed to its terms voluntarily and with full knowledge of their obligations under it. This ruling established that contracts can be legally enforceable even when not supported by any form of consideration or payment from one party to another as long as all other elements are present such as mutual assent and capacity to enter into agreements.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In Thomas Griffin and Hugh Ervin v. Robert Thompson, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when one of them had died before it was completed. The majority opinion held that the contract should not be enforced because it had been made with an individual who no longer existed in law. However, Justice McLean dissented from this decision and argued that contracts are binding on both parties regardless of death or disability unless they have specifically stated otherwise in their agreement. He further noted that if such agreements were not enforceable after death, then creditors would suffer greatly as they would never receive payment for goods or services provided prior to someone's passing away. As such, he concluded that contracts should remain valid even if one party has passed away since its formation so long as there is sufficient evidence proving its existence and terms at the time of execution by both sides involved

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