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

David Maxwell, And Thomas Watkins And Mary Watkins His Wiee, Plaintiffs In Error, v. Israel M. Moore, Madison M. Morris, Henry Morris, James P. Kellen, John F. Black, James F. Batte, And William M. Craig

1859 • 63 U.S. 185 • Taney Court
In this case, David Maxwell and Thomas Watkins and Mary Watkins his wife (the plaintiffs in error) brought a suit against Israel M. Moore, Madison M. Morris, Henry Morris, James P. Kellen, John F. Black, James F. Batte and William M Craig (the defendants). The dispute centered around the ownership of certain real estate located in Missouri that had been purchased by the plaintiffs from one of the defendants for $2125 dollars but was later claimed to be owned by another defendant who refused to...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: 1859
63 U.S. 185
16 L. Ed. 251
1859 U.S. LEXIS 712

David Maxwell, And Thomas Watkins And Mary Watkins His Wiee, Plaintiffs In Error, v. Israel M. Moore, Madison M. Morris, Henry Morris, James P. Kellen, John F. Black, James F. Batte, And William M. Craig

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In this case, David Maxwell and Thomas Watkins and Mary Watkins his wife (the plaintiffs in error) brought a suit against Israel M. Moore, Madison M. Morris, Henry Morris, James P. Kellen, John F. Black, James F. Batte and William M Craig (the defendants). The dispute centered around the ownership of certain real estate located in Missouri that had been purchased by the plaintiffs from one of the defendants for $2125 dollars but was later claimed to be owned by another defendant who refused to honor the sale or return any money paid on it. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the plaintiffs holding that they were entitled to recover their purchase price plus interest from all parties involved as well as damages for trespass committed upon them when they attempted to take possession of said property after purchasing it legally from one party with no knowledge that there was an outstanding claim against it by another party at time of sale .

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of David Maxwell, Thomas Watkins and Mary Watkins v. Israel M. Moore et al., the dissenting opinion was that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written, regardless of any subsequent changes in circumstances or events that may have occurred after it was signed. The majority had held that because certain conditions had changed since the contract's signing, it could not be enforced; however, this view did not take into account other provisions within the agreement which allowed for such modifications to occur without invalidating its terms. As such, Justice Grier argued that these changes were irrelevant and should not affect whether or not a valid contract existed between both parties at all times during its duration.

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