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

Holland v. Shipley

• 1887 • 127 U.S. 396 • Waite Court
Holland v. Shipley was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved a contract between the plaintiff, Holland, and the defendant, Shipley, for the sale of a steamboat. The contract stated that the steamboat was to be delivered to Holland within a certain time frame, and that if it was not delivered, Shipley would be liable for damages. Shipley failed to deliver the steamboat within the specified time frame,...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: 1887
Docket: 249
127 U.S. 396
8 S. Ct. 1089
32 L. Ed. 185
1888 U.S. LEXIS 2001
Argued: Apr 25, 1888

Holland v. Shipley

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

Holland v. Shipley was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved a contract between the plaintiff, Holland, and the defendant, Shipley, for the sale of a steamboat. The contract stated that the steamboat was to be delivered to Holland within a certain time frame, and that if it was not delivered, Shipley would be liable for damages. Shipley failed to deliver the steamboat within the specified time frame, and Holland sued for damages. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that Shipley was liable for damages. The Court reasoned that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that the parties had agreed to its terms. The Court also noted that the contract was supported by consideration, as Holland had paid a portion of the purchase price in advance. The Court's decision in Holland v. Shipley established that contracts are binding and enforceable, and that parties must abide by the terms of the contract. The decision also established that consideration is an important factor in determining the validity of a contract.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Holland v. Shipley, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced despite being made in violation of an existing state law. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable and thus dismissed the plaintiff's claim for damages. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on the basis that it would lead to unjust results in certain cases where one party had relied upon another's promise and acted accordingly only to find out later that their agreement was unenforceable due to its illegality under state law. He argued instead for a more equitable approach which allowed courts to consider all relevant facts before deciding whether or not a contract should be enforced even if it violated state laws. Ultimately, his dissent did not sway enough justices and so the majority opinion stood as precedent going forward.

Opinion written by Justice HGray
Decided: May 14, 1888
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