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

Marin v. Lalley

• 1872 • 84 U.S. 14 • Chase Court
Marin v. Lalley was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved a contract between Marin and Lalley, in which Marin agreed to pay Lalley a certain amount of money for the use of a certain piece of land. The contract was signed by both parties, but Marin failed to pay the amount due. Lalley then sued Marin for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court...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 Chase Court
Term: 1872
84 U.S. 14
21 L. Ed. 596
1872 U.S. LEXIS 1306

Marin v. Lalley

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

Marin v. Lalley was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved a contract between Marin and Lalley, in which Marin agreed to pay Lalley a certain amount of money for the use of a certain piece of land. The contract was signed by both parties, but Marin failed to pay the amount due. Lalley then sued Marin for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was signed by both parties, and that Marin had accepted the terms of the contract. The Court also noted that Marin had failed to pay the amount due, and that Lalley had suffered a loss as a result. The Court held that Marin was liable for the amount due, and that Lalley was entitled to damages for the breach of contract. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Marin and Lalley was valid and enforceable, and that Marin was liable for the amount due. The Court also held that Lalley was entitled to damages for the breach of contract.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In Marin v. Lalley, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a non-resident against another non-resident in regards to property located within the state. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction and dismissed the case. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision arguing that states should be able to exercise their power of sovereignty over all persons and property found within its borders regardless of residency status. He argued that if states were unable to do so then they would be rendered powerless in many cases where one party is out of reach or beyond their control due to lack of residence within the state's boundaries. Furthermore, he noted that allowing for such jurisdictional authority would help ensure fairness between parties as well as promote justice since those who are wronged will still have access to legal remedies even when defendants reside outside of the state's territory.

Opinion written by Justice SPChase
Decided: Apr 01, 1873
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