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 Hamilton v. James Russell

1803 • 5 U.S. 309 • Marshall Court
Thomas Hamilton v. James Russell was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1803. The dispute arose when Hamilton, an inhabitant of Virginia, sued Russell for debt and damages due to a breach of contract. In his complaint, Hamilton alleged that he had sold certain goods to Russell on credit with the understanding that they would be paid for within six months time; however, after the expiration of this period no payment had been made. At trial before the Circuit Court of Virginia,...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: 1803
5 U.S. 309
2 L. Ed. 118
1803 U.S. LEXIS 363
Argued: Feb 24, 1803

Thomas Hamilton v. James Russell

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

Thomas Hamilton v. James Russell was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1803. The dispute arose when Hamilton, an inhabitant of Virginia, sued Russell for debt and damages due to a breach of contract. In his complaint, Hamilton alleged that he had sold certain goods to Russell on credit with the understanding that they would be paid for within six months time; however, after the expiration of this period no payment had been made. At trial before the Circuit Court of Virginia, judgment was entered in favor of Hamilton but it was reversed upon appeal by Russell to the Supreme Court on grounds that there were errors in law committed during proceedings below which affected its decision-making process. After reviewing both sides' arguments and evidence presented at trial as well as relevant legal precedent from other jurisdictions, Chief Justice John Marshall delivered an opinion affirming reversal and remanding back down for further consideration consistent with established principles governing contracts between merchants such as those involved here.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In Thomas Hamilton v. James Russell, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced if it had been made without consideration. The majority opinion held that the contract in question was not enforceable because there was no consideration given by either party when they entered into the agreement. However, Justice Chase dissented from this decision and argued that contracts should be enforced even when there is no consideration involved as long as both parties have agreed to its terms and conditions in good faith. He reasoned that enforcing such agreements would promote justice and fairness among individuals who enter into them with honest intentions but may lack sufficient resources or knowledge of legal principles to provide adequate compensation for their promises. Furthermore, he suggested that allowing these types of contracts would encourage people to make more binding commitments which could benefit society at large by fostering trustworthiness and reliability within business transactions.

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