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

Hollingsworth v. Flint

• 1879 • 101 U.S. 591 • Waite Court
Hollingsworth v. Flint was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state court could enforce a contract that was made in another state. The case involved a contract between two parties, one of whom was a resident of the state of Michigan and the other a resident of the state of New York. The contract was made in New York and provided for the payment of a certain sum of money to the Michigan resident. The Michigan resident then sued the New York resident in a...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: 1879
Docket: 217
101 U.S. 591
25 L. Ed. 1028
1879 U.S. LEXIS 1960

Hollingsworth v. Flint

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

Hollingsworth v. Flint was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state court could enforce a contract that was made in another state. The case involved a contract between two parties, one of whom was a resident of the state of Michigan and the other a resident of the state of New York. The contract was made in New York and provided for the payment of a certain sum of money to the Michigan resident. The Michigan resident then sued the New York resident in a Michigan court to enforce the contract. The Supreme Court held that the Michigan court did not have the power to enforce the contract because it was made in another state. The Court reasoned that the contract was made in New York and was therefore subject to the laws of that state. The Court further held that the Michigan court could not enforce the contract because it was not made in Michigan and was therefore not subject to the laws of that state. The Court concluded that the Michigan court did not have the power to enforce the contract and that the New York resident was not liable for the payment of the sum of money.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Hollingsworth v. Flint, arguing that the majority had erred in its decision to deny a writ of error to review an earlier judgment from California's Supreme Court. He argued that under Article III of the Constitution, this Court was obligated to grant such a writ when requested by either party and should not have denied it on procedural grounds as it did here. Furthermore, he noted that even if there were some technical issue with how the petition for certiorari was filed or presented before this court, they still could have granted relief through other means available to them. Justice Field concluded his dissent by noting that while he disagreed with many aspects of California's law regarding water rights at issue in this case, those issues should be left up for determination by their own courts rather than being decided upon here without proper jurisdiction over them.

Opinion written by Justice JHarlan(1)
Decided: Apr 26, 1880
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