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

Charles Minturn, Appellant, v. Lafayette Maynard, Gilbert A. Grant, Thomas G. Wells, Lucien Skinner, Frederick Billings, Charles J. Brenham, Isaac T. Mott, J. De La Montagne, E. M. Neal, And Thomas L. Chapman

1854 • 58 U.S. 477 • Taney Court
Charles Minturn, appellant, brought a case against Lafayette Maynard, Gilbert A. Grant, Thomas G. Wells, Lucien Skinner, Frederick Billings Charles J. Brenham Isaac T Mott J De La Montagne E M Neal and Thomas L Chapman for the purpose of recovering damages from them in an amount exceeding $50000 due to him as compensation for services rendered by him to the defendants while he was employed as their agent in California during 1849-1850. The court found that Minturn had not proven his claim and...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: 1854
58 U.S. 477
15 L. Ed. 235
1854 U.S. LEXIS 537
Argued: Mar 02, 1855

Charles Minturn, Appellant, v. Lafayette Maynard, Gilbert A. Grant, Thomas G. Wells, Lucien Skinner, Frederick Billings, Charles J. Brenham, Isaac T. Mott, J. De La Montagne, E. M. Neal, And Thomas L. Chapman

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

Charles Minturn, appellant, brought a case against Lafayette Maynard, Gilbert A. Grant, Thomas G. Wells, Lucien Skinner, Frederick Billings Charles J. Brenham Isaac T Mott J De La Montagne E M Neal and Thomas L Chapman for the purpose of recovering damages from them in an amount exceeding $50000 due to him as compensation for services rendered by him to the defendants while he was employed as their agent in California during 1849-1850. The court found that Minturn had not proven his claim and dismissed it with costs assessed against him; however on appeal the Supreme Court reversed this decision finding that there was sufficient evidence presented at trial which showed that Minturn had performed valuable services for the defendants and should be compensated accordingly. The Supreme Court remanded back to lower court so they could determine what amount of money would be fair compensation for these services provided by Minturn

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Charles Minturn v. Lafayette Maynard et al., the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a contract between two parties, in which one party agreed to pay for land owned by another, could be enforced if it had been made without consideration and not signed by both parties. The majority opinion held that such contracts were unenforceable because they lacked consideration and did not have signatures from both sides. However, Justice McLean dissented on this ruling, arguing that there should be an exception when a contract is partially performed before either side has raised any objections or defenses against its enforceability. He argued that since part of the agreement had already been completed at this point (the payment for the land), then it would be unfair to allow one party to back out of their obligations after having received some benefit from them. Therefore he concluded that even though no signature existed on behalf of Minturn's side and no consideration was given as part of the original agreement, it should still remain valid due to partial performance being present in this particular situation

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