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

Oakley v. Goodnow

• 1885 • 118 U.S. 43 • Waite Court
Oakley v. Goodnow 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 dispute between two parties, Oakley and Goodnow, over a contract for the sale of a piece of land. Oakley had agreed to sell the land to Goodnow for a certain sum of money, but Goodnow had failed to pay the full amount. Oakley then sued Goodnow for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract between Oakley and Goodnow was...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 Waite Court
Term: 1885
Docket: 1315
118 U.S. 43
6 S. Ct. 944
30 L. Ed. 61
1886 U.S. LEXIS 1897

Oakley v. Goodnow

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

Oakley v. Goodnow 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 dispute between two parties, Oakley and Goodnow, over a contract for the sale of a piece of land. Oakley had agreed to sell the land to Goodnow for a certain sum of money, but Goodnow had failed to pay the full amount. Oakley then sued Goodnow for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract between Oakley and Goodnow was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that both parties had given something of value in exchange for the agreement. The Court also found that the contract was not void for lack of consideration, as Goodnow had paid a portion of the agreed-upon sum. The Court also held that Oakley was entitled to damages for Goodnow's breach of contract. The Court found that Oakley was entitled to the full amount of the purchase price, plus interest, as well as any other damages that may have been caused by Goodnow's breach. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Oakley and Goodnow was valid and enforceable, and that Oakley was entitled to damages for Goodnow's breach of contract.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Oakley v. Goodnow, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on a misapplication of New York law. He argued that under New York law, an executor had no authority to sell real estate without court approval and thus could not convey title to another party. Furthermore, he noted that even if such power did exist it would be limited by certain conditions which were not met in this case; namely, there was no proof of notice or opportunity for creditors to object as required by statute. Justice Field concluded his dissent with a reminder that courts should always adhere strictly to state laws when making decisions involving property rights since those laws are designed specifically for protecting citizens' interests from being violated or disregarded.

Opinion written by Justice MRWaite
Decided: Apr 19, 1886
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