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

Killian v. Ebbinghaus

• 1883 • 111 U.S. 798 • Waite Court
In Killian v. Ebbighaus, 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 Killian and Ebbighaus, and it stated that Killian would pay Ebbighaus a certain amount of money in exchange for the use of a certain piece of land. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that both parties had agreed to its...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: 1883
111 U.S. 798
4 S. Ct. 697
28 L. Ed. 593
1884 U.S. LEXIS 1844

Killian v. Ebbinghaus

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In Killian v. Ebbighaus, 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 Killian and Ebbighaus, and it stated that Killian would pay Ebbighaus a certain amount of money in exchange for the use of a certain piece of land. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that both parties had agreed to its terms. The Court also noted that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that both parties had given something of value in exchange for the contract. The Court also held that the contract was not voidable due to any lack of capacity on the part of either party. The Court noted that both parties were of sound mind and had the capacity to enter into a contract. Finally, the Court held that the contract was not voidable due to any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of either party. The Court noted that there was no evidence that either party had made any false statements or had acted in bad faith. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Killian and Ebbighaus was valid and enforceable.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In Killian v. Ebbighaus, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when one of the parties had died before it was executed. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable because they lacked consideration and mutuality of obligation. However, in dissent, Justice Field argued that there should be an exception to this rule for cases where both parties intended to enter into a binding agreement prior to one party's death but did not have time to execute it due to circumstances beyond their control. He reasoned that since both sides had agreed on all terms and conditions beforehand, enforcing the contract would serve justice by allowing them each receive what they bargained for even though only one side survived long enough to sign it.

Opinion written by Justice MRWaite
Decided: May 05, 1884
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