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

Liter Et Al. v. Green

1817 • 15 U.S. 306 • Marshall Court
In the case of Liter et al. v. Green, the Supreme Court ruled that a state court had no authority to interfere with a contract made between two citizens of different states in another state's jurisdiction. The dispute arose when William Green, an Ohio resident, contracted with John and Thomas Liter for goods from Pennsylvania but failed to pay them after receiving them. The Liters sued him in Pennsylvania courts and obtained judgment against him; however, he then sought relief from an Ohio...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: 1817
15 U.S. 306
4 L. Ed. 246
1817 U.S. LEXIS 406
Argued: Mar 08, 1817

Liter Et Al. v. Green

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Liter et al. v. Green, the Supreme Court ruled that a state court had no authority to interfere with a contract made between two citizens of different states in another state's jurisdiction. The dispute arose when William Green, an Ohio resident, contracted with John and Thomas Liter for goods from Pennsylvania but failed to pay them after receiving them. The Liters sued him in Pennsylvania courts and obtained judgment against him; however, he then sought relief from an Ohio court on the grounds that his contract was invalid because it violated Ohio law prohibiting contracts between citizens of different states unless they were authorized by special act or resolution passed by its legislature. The Supreme Court held that this action was unconstitutional as it interfered with interstate commerce and deprived individuals of their right to make contracts without legislative interference or approval from other states' legislatures.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Liter et al. v. Green, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by citizens of one state against citizens of another in which title to land was at issue. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction and dismissed the suit for lack of proper venue. However, Justice Story dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that there were no constitutional provisions preventing states from exercising their own judicial powers; secondly, he contended that since Congress had not legislated any specific rules regarding diversity suits between states or otherwise provided guidance on how they should be handled then it would be wrong for the federal courts to interfere with matters traditionally within a state's purview without clear direction from Congress itself. In conclusion, Justice Story believed that if Congress wanted to limit or regulate these types of cases then it should do so explicitly rather than allowing them to remain subject only to individual state laws and regulations as they currently are.

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