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

Hallet And Bowne v. Jenks And Others

1805 • 7 U.S. 210 • Marshall Court
Hallett and Bowne v. Jenks and Others was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1805. The dispute arose when Hallett & Bowne, a partnership of merchants from New York City, sued Jenks & Others for failing to pay them on an account balance due for goods purchased from them. The defendants argued that they were not liable because the goods had been sold to their agent who had since died without paying his debt or leaving any assets behind with which to satisfy it. However, the court...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: 1805
7 U.S. 210
2 L. Ed. 414
1805 U.S. LEXIS 254
Argued: Mar 05, 1805

Hallet And Bowne v. Jenks And Others

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

Hallett and Bowne v. Jenks and Others was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1805. The dispute arose when Hallett & Bowne, a partnership of merchants from New York City, sued Jenks & Others for failing to pay them on an account balance due for goods purchased from them. The defendants argued that they were not liable because the goods had been sold to their agent who had since died without paying his debt or leaving any assets behind with which to satisfy it. However, the court found in favor of Hallett & Bowne holding that partners are jointly responsible for debts incurred by one partner acting as an agent on behalf of all partners even if those debts remain unpaid after death or insolvency of such partner-agent. This ruling established important precedent regarding partnerships and agency law in America at this time period.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In Hallett and Bowne v. Jenks and Others, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced by one of them against the other after it had been assigned to a third party. The majority opinion held that such an assignment was valid, but Justice Paterson dissented on the grounds that contracts are personal in nature and cannot be transferred from one person to another without both parties' consent. He argued that allowing assignments would lead to confusion over who is bound by what terms of a contract, as well as create uncertainty about which party has authority over its enforcement or modification. Furthermore, he believed this would undermine public confidence in contractual obligations since they can easily be shifted around without any regard for their original purpose or intent.

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