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

Inbusch Vs. Farwell

1861 • 66 U.S. 566 • Taney Court
Inbusch v. Farwell was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1861. The dispute arose from an agreement between Inbusch and Farwell, whereby Inbusch agreed to sell his land for $2,000 with half of the payment due at signing and the other half due one year later. When it came time to make the second payment, Farwell refused to pay on grounds that he had not received title deed as promised by Inbusch. The court found that although there was no written contract between them, their...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: 1861
66 U.S. 566
17 L. Ed. 188
1861 U.S. LEXIS 513
Argued: Feb 13, 1862

Inbusch Vs. Farwell

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

Inbusch v. Farwell was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1861. The dispute arose from an agreement between Inbusch and Farwell, whereby Inbusch agreed to sell his land for $2,000 with half of the payment due at signing and the other half due one year later. When it came time to make the second payment, Farwell refused to pay on grounds that he had not received title deed as promised by Inbusch. The court found that although there was no written contract between them, their verbal agreement constituted a valid contract under Illinois law and thus held that Farwell must make full payment according to its terms or face legal action for breach of contract. Furthermore, they ruled that if either party failed to perform any part of their obligations then they would be liable for damages caused thereby regardless of whether such failure was intentional or unintentional. Ultimately this decision established important precedent regarding contracts entered into without formal writing requirements being met first; namely that verbal agreements are still legally binding even when certain conditions have not been fulfilled prior thereto

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In Busch v. Farwell, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a contract for personal services could not be enforced against an individual in equity. The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice Taney and joined by Justices Nelson, Grier, Clifford, and Davis. In his dissent to this decision, Justice Curtis argued that contracts for personal services should be enforceable in equity if they are fair and reasonable when made. He noted that courts have long recognized such contracts as valid under certain circumstances; thus he concluded that it would be unjust to deny enforcement of them altogether simply because they involve personal service rather than goods or money. Furthermore, he reasoned that denying equitable relief would leave individuals with no remedy at all since damages were inadequate compensation for breach of such agreements due to their unique nature.

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