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

Nathaniel Lord, Plaintiff In Error, v. John W. Veazie, Defendant

1850 • 49 U.S. 251 • Taney Court
Nathaniel Lord brought a case against John W. Veazie in the Supreme Court of the United States, claiming that he was entitled to damages for breach of contract. The contract between them stated that Veazie would pay Lord $1,000 if he could prove title to certain land within one year from the date of their agreement. After proving his title, Lord demanded payment but Veazie refused and argued that there had been no consideration given by him since it was not necessary for him to do anything...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 Taney Court
Term: 1850
49 U.S. 251
12 L. Ed. 1067
1850 U.S. LEXIS 1671
Argued: Feb 08, 1850

Nathaniel Lord, Plaintiff In Error, v. John W. Veazie, Defendant

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

Nathaniel Lord brought a case against John W. Veazie in the Supreme Court of the United States, claiming that he was entitled to damages for breach of contract. The contract between them stated that Veazie would pay Lord $1,000 if he could prove title to certain land within one year from the date of their agreement. After proving his title, Lord demanded payment but Veazie refused and argued that there had been no consideration given by him since it was not necessary for him to do anything other than wait until proof was provided by Lord. The court disagreed with this argument and held that although nothing required Veazie to act during the period before proof was presented, his promise constituted sufficient consideration as it bound both parties in an enforceable obligation under law. As such, they ruled in favor of Lord and ordered compensation for breach of contract be paid out accordingly.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Nathaniel Lord v. John W. Veazie, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when one party had not received full payment for their services as agreed upon in the contract. The majority opinion held that since there was no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation on either side, and both parties were competent adults who entered into an agreement voluntarily, then it should be enforced even if only partial payment had been made by one party at the time of dispute resolution. However, Justice McLean dissented from this opinion and argued that contracts must always be performed according to their terms; thus any failure to make full payment would render them unenforceable unless some special circumstances existed which allowed for such a deviation from contractual obligations. He further stated that while courts may have discretion in certain cases where enforcement is sought despite non-payment due to extenuating circumstances beyond either party's control, they cannot do so without sufficient proof being presented before them showing why such action is necessary or appropriate under those particular conditions.

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