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

The Providence Bank, Plaintiffs In Error Vs. Alpheus Billings And Thomas G. Pittman

1830 • 29 U.S. 514 • Marshall Court
The Providence Bank, Plaintiffs in Error vs. Alpheus Billings and Thomas G. Pittman was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1830. The dispute revolved around two promissory notes issued by Billings and Pittman to the bank for $1,000 each with interest of 6%. The defendants argued that they were not liable on either note because there had been no consideration given for them; however, the court found that since both parties had agreed to enter into an arrangement where money would...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 Marshall Court
Term: 1830
29 U.S. 514
7 L. Ed. 939
1830 U.S. LEXIS 490
Argued: Feb 11, 1830

The Providence Bank, Plaintiffs In Error Vs. Alpheus Billings And Thomas G. Pittman

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

The Providence Bank, Plaintiffs in Error vs. Alpheus Billings and Thomas G. Pittman was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1830. The dispute revolved around two promissory notes issued by Billings and Pittman to the bank for $1,000 each with interest of 6%. The defendants argued that they were not liable on either note because there had been no consideration given for them; however, the court found that since both parties had agreed to enter into an arrangement where money would be exchanged between them, this constituted sufficient consideration under contract law. Furthermore, it was determined that even if one or both of the notes were invalid due to lack of consideration at their inception, any subsequent payments made towards them could still be recovered from those who received such payments as long as they knew about their origin when receiving said funds. Ultimately, judgment was entered against Billings and Pittman for payment on both notes plus interest accrued up until then according to terms previously established between all parties involved in this transaction.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of The Providence Bank vs. Alpheus Billings and Thomas G. Pittman, Chief Justice Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion that disagreed with the majority's ruling in favor of the defendants. He argued that although it was true that no specific contract existed between them, there were still certain obligations on both sides which had been created by their actions and conduct towards each other. According to him, these obligations should be recognized as binding even without an express agreement or written document to support them; otherwise, people would not be able to rely on any promises made between parties if they could simply deny ever having agreed upon anything in writing. Furthermore, he believed that this decision would set a dangerous precedent for future cases involving similar circumstances where one party may try to avoid their responsibilities due to lack of evidence proving an explicit agreement between them and another party.

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