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

Pearce v. Rice

• 1891 • 142 U.S. 28 • Fuller Court
In the case of Pearce v. Rice in 1891, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership. The plaintiff, Pearce, claimed that he had purchased a tract of land from an individual who had received it as part of a military bounty land warrant under an act passed by Congress in 1855. However, this individual was not actually entitled to receive such warrants because they were only for soldiers or their widows and children; this person was merely acting as an agent for others...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 Fuller Court
Term: 1891
Docket: 51
142 U.S. 28
12 S. Ct. 130
35 L. Ed. 925
1891 U.S. LEXIS 2566
Argued: Oct 26, 1891

Pearce v. Rice

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Pearce v. Rice in 1891, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership. The plaintiff, Pearce, claimed that he had purchased a tract of land from an individual who had received it as part of a military bounty land warrant under an act passed by Congress in 1855. However, this individual was not actually entitled to receive such warrants because they were only for soldiers or their widows and children; this person was merely acting as an agent for others who were eligible. The defendant, Rice, argued that since the original grantee did not have valid title to the property due to his ineligible status under federal law at that time when he sold it to Pearce, therefore Pearce's claim should be nullified too. The court ruled in favor of Rice stating that although there might have been some irregularities regarding how these lands were initially distributed but once they are out into commerce and bought by innocent purchasers without any notice about those irregularities then their titles cannot be invalidated afterwards based on those initial discrepancies alone unless fraud can be proven which wasn't established here against either party involved.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

The dissenting opinion in the Pearce v. Rice case argued that the court majority had erred in its interpretation of the law and constitutionality regarding taxation on bonds. The dissent emphasized that a state has no right to tax federal securities, as this would interfere with federal operations and violate constitutional principles of intergovernmental immunity. It was also pointed out that such taxes could potentially be used by states to obstruct or control actions of the national government, which is against the spirit of cooperative federalism enshrined in U.S Constitution. Furthermore, it was contended that exempting these bonds from state taxation does not necessarily mean granting them special privileges; rather it's about maintaining clear boundaries between state and federal jurisdictions as intended by framers of Constitution.

Opinion written by Justice JHarlan(1)
Decided: Dec 07, 1891
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