| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Richard M. Scott was the plaintiff in error and Ezra Lunt's administrator was the defendant in error in this Supreme Court case. The dispute centered around a promissory note that had been made by Richard M. Scott to Ezra Lunt for $1,000 with interest at 6%. After Lunt passed away, his administrator brought suit against Scott for non-payment of the debt plus interest due on it. The lower court ruled that since there were no witnesses present when the note was signed, it could not be enforced as written and thus dismissed the claim against Scott without prejudice. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Justice Story held that under Massachusetts law (where this transaction took place) an oral promise is binding if supported by sufficient evidence even though there are no witnesses present at its execution; therefore he reversed judgment of dismissal from below and remanded back to lower court so they may determine whether or not such evidence exists here based upon testimony given during trial proceedings before them.
In Richard M. Scott v. Ezra Lunt's Administrator, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a non-resident of that state against another non-resident who resided in the same state as the plaintiff. The majority opinion held that such jurisdiction did not exist and reversed the judgment of the lower court. However, Justice Story dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that there was no reason why states should be prevented from exercising their power to adjudicate disputes between citizens and non-citizens; secondly, he contended that if it were found necessary for public policy reasons to restrict such powers then Congress should do so rather than leaving it up to individual states or courts. In conclusion, Justice Story believed that allowing states to exercise their authority over cases involving both citizens and non-citizens would promote justice without infringing upon any constitutional rights or principles established by Congress