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

John And James Tucker v. Oxley, Assignee Of T. Moore, A Bankrupt

1809 • 9 U.S. 34 • Marshall Court
John and James Tucker v. Oxley, Assignee of T. Moore was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1809. The dispute arose when John and James Tucker purchased goods from Thomas Moore on credit with an agreement that they would pay him back at a later date. However, before they could make payment, Moore declared bankruptcy and his assets were assigned to Oxley as assignee of his estate. When the Tuckers refused to pay for the goods due to their prior agreement with Moore, Oxley sued...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 Marshall Court
Term: 1809
9 U.S. 34
3 L. Ed. 29
1809 U.S. LEXIS 414
Argued: Feb 09, 1809

John And James Tucker v. Oxley, Assignee Of T. Moore, A Bankrupt

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

John and James Tucker v. Oxley, Assignee of T. Moore was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1809. The dispute arose when John and James Tucker purchased goods from Thomas Moore on credit with an agreement that they would pay him back at a later date. However, before they could make payment, Moore declared bankruptcy and his assets were assigned to Oxley as assignee of his estate. When the Tuckers refused to pay for the goods due to their prior agreement with Moore, Oxley sued them for breach of contract in order to recover what he believed was owed by them under the original terms agreed upon between himself and Moore’s creditors. The court ultimately ruled in favor of Oxley because it found that there had been no fraud or misrepresentation on behalf of either party involved in this transaction; therefore, both parties were bound by its original terms regardless if one party (Moore) became bankrupt after entering into it or not

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of John and James Tucker v. Oxley, Assignee of T. Moore, a Bankrupt, the dissenting opinion was that the assignee had no right to sue for debts due from debtors to their bankrupt principal in his own name as assignee; rather he should have sued in the name of his principal or debtor. The majority opinion held that an assignment is a transfer by operation of law and not merely an authority given by deed or writing; therefore it was within reason for Oxley to bring suit against John and James Tucker on behalf of Moore without having any written authorization from him. However, Justice Washington argued that this would be contrary to established principles which require suits brought on behalf of another person must be done so in their name instead being brought under one's own title as assignee. He further stated that if such action were allowed then creditors could use assignments fraudulently against debtors who are unaware they are dealing with someone other than whom they originally contracted with - thus creating great injustice among parties involved in commercial transactions

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