| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

In the case of Jerome v. McCarter, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The contract in question was between a man named Jerome and a man named McCarter. Jerome had agreed to pay McCarter a certain sum of money in exchange for a piece of land. McCarter had agreed to accept the payment and transfer the land to Jerome. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the parties had agreed to the terms of the contract and that the contract was supported by consideration. The Court also noted that the contract was not against public policy and that it was not illegal. The Court concluded that the contract was valid and enforceable and that Jerome was obligated to pay McCarter the agreed-upon sum of money. The Court also held that McCarter was obligated to transfer the land to Jerome upon receipt of the payment.
Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Jerome v. McCarter, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided and should be reversed. He argued that under New York law, a contract for personal services could not be assigned without consent of both parties to the agreement. The plaintiff had entered into an employment contract with defendant McCarter which provided for payment of wages upon completion of certain tasks; however, when he failed to complete his duties as agreed upon, he attempted to assign his rights under the contract to another party who then sued on behalf of himself and plaintiff Jerome. Justice Field asserted that since there was no evidence presented at trial showing any assignment or transfer from one person to another prior to suit being filed by third-party claimant, it would have been impossible for him (the third-party)to sue on behalf of either party involved in this dispute because neither had consented nor authorized such action. Therefore, Justice Field concluded that judgment should have been rendered in favor of defendant McCarter instead as per New York law governing contracts involving personal services