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

Prentice v. Pickersgill

• 1867 • 73 U.S. 511 • Chase Court
Prentice v. Pickersgill 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, Prentice and Pickersgill, over a contract for the sale of a piece of land. Prentice had agreed to purchase the land from Pickersgill, but Pickersgill later refused to honor the contract. Prentice then sued Pickersgill for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract between the two parties...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 Chase Court
Term: 1867
73 U.S. 511
18 L. Ed. 790
1867 U.S. LEXIS 999

Prentice v. Pickersgill

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

Prentice v. Pickersgill 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, Prentice and Pickersgill, over a contract for the sale of a piece of land. Prentice had agreed to purchase the land from Pickersgill, but Pickersgill later refused to honor the contract. Prentice then sued Pickersgill for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract between the two parties 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 land. The Court also found that the contract was not voidable due to any lack of capacity or fraud. The Court's decision in Prentice v. Pickersgill established that contracts between two parties are valid and enforceable if they are supported by consideration and are not voidable due to any lack of capacity or fraud. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases and has become an important precedent in contract law.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In Prentice v. Pickersgill, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a federal district court's decision in admiralty cases. The majority opinion held that the state courts did not have such authority and thus dismissed the case. However, Justice Field dissented on this point and argued that Congress had given states concurrent jurisdiction over appeals from federal district courts in admiralty cases by passing laws granting them such power. He also noted that there were no constitutional provisions prohibiting states from exercising their own powers of review when it came to these types of matters, as long as they did not conflict with any existing federal law or regulation. As such, he concluded that the state court should be allowed to hear this particular appeal since there was nothing preventing it from doing so under current law or precedent at the time of judgment.

Opinion written by Justice SPChase
Decided: Jan 13, 1868
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