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

Potts Et Al. v. Chumasero Et Al.

• 1875 • 92 U.S. 358 • Waite Court
In Potts et al. v. Chumasero et al., the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The contract in question was between the plaintiffs, Potts and others, and the defendants, Chumasero and others. The plaintiffs had agreed to pay the defendants a certain sum of money in exchange for the defendants' promise to convey certain real estate to the plaintiffs. The defendants argued that the contract was invalid because it...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: 1875
Docket: 545
92 U.S. 358
23 L. Ed. 499
1875 U.S. LEXIS 1766
Argued: Jan 19, 1876

Potts Et Al. v. Chumasero Et Al.

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In Potts et al. v. Chumasero et al., the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The contract in question was between the plaintiffs, Potts and others, and the defendants, Chumasero and others. The plaintiffs had agreed to pay the defendants a certain sum of money in exchange for the defendants' promise to convey certain real estate to the plaintiffs. The defendants argued that the contract was invalid because it had not been properly executed. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract had been signed by both parties and that the consideration had been paid. The Court also noted that the contract had been made in good faith and that the parties had intended to be bound by its terms. The Court concluded that the contract was valid and enforceable and that the plaintiffs were entitled to the real estate as promised.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Potts et al. v. Chumasero et al., the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties, in which one party agreed to pay for goods and services provided by another, could be enforced when it had been made without consideration or value exchanged from either side. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable under common law principles because they lacked mutuality of obligation and consideration; however, Justice Field dissented on this point. He argued that while there may have been no immediate exchange of value between the parties at the time of making their agreement, if one party has already performed his part then he should be able to recover damages for breach even though no actual money changed hands initially. In other words, Justice Field believed that courts should recognize past performance as valid consideration in certain cases where an agreement is otherwise fair and equitable but lacks any initial exchange of money or property as required by traditional common law rules governing contracts

Opinion written by Justice MRWaite
Decided: Jan 31, 1876
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