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

Purcell v. Miner

• 1866 • 71 U.S. 513 • Chase Court
In Purcell v. Miner, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid. The contract in question was between a miner, Purcell, and a mining company, Miner. Purcell had agreed to work for Miner for a period of two years in exchange for a certain amount of money. Miner had failed to pay Purcell the agreed-upon amount, and Purcell sued for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court...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: 1866
71 U.S. 513
18 L. Ed. 435
1866 U.S. LEXIS 900
Argued: Feb 14, 1867

Purcell v. Miner

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In Purcell v. Miner, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid. The contract in question was between a miner, Purcell, and a mining company, Miner. Purcell had agreed to work for Miner for a period of two years in exchange for a certain amount of money. Miner had failed to pay Purcell the agreed-upon amount, and Purcell sued for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that both parties had agreed to its terms. The Court also noted that the contract was not against public policy, and that it was not unconscionable. The Court held that Miner was liable for breach of contract and ordered it to pay Purcell the agreed-upon amount. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Purcell and Miner was valid and enforceable. The Court ordered Miner to pay Purcell the agreed-upon amount for breach of contract.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In Purcell v. Miner, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration of any kind. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable and should not be recognized by courts of law. However, in his dissenting opinion Justice Nelson argued that while consideration is generally necessary for a valid contract to exist, there are certain exceptions where no consideration is required but the agreement still holds legal force. He further stated that if an agreement has been entered into in good faith and both parties have acted upon it as though it were binding then the court should recognize its validity even if there was no initial exchange of value or promise given at the time of formation. Ultimately he concluded that since both parties had acted on their agreement and relied upon its terms they should be allowed to seek enforcement through judicial means despite having initially formed their arrangement without any form of consideration present

Opinion written by Justice RCGrier
Decided: Feb 26, 1867
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