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

Jerome v. Mccarter

• 1874 • 88 U.S. 17 • Waite Court
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...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: 1874
88 U.S. 17
22 L. Ed. 515
1874 U.S. LEXIS 1336
Argued: Dec 11, 1874

Jerome v. Mccarter

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

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.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

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

Opinion written by Justice MRWaite
Decided: Dec 21, 1874
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