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

William A. Shaffer, Plaintiff In Error, v. James A. Scudday

1856 • 60 U.S. 16 • Taney Court
In the case of William A. Shaffer v. James A. Scudday, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties should be enforced even if it had been made under false pretenses and with fraudulent intent by one of them. The plaintiff in error, William Shaffer, argued that he had entered into an agreement with defendant James Scudday for certain services to be performed on his behalf; however, at the time of making this agreement Mr. Scudday knew that he would not fulfill...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 Taney Court
Term: 1856
60 U.S. 16
15 L. Ed. 592
1856 U.S. LEXIS 415
Argued: Dec 30, 1856

William A. Shaffer, Plaintiff In Error, v. James A. Scudday

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of William A. Shaffer v. James A. Scudday, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties should be enforced even if it had been made under false pretenses and with fraudulent intent by one of them. The plaintiff in error, William Shaffer, argued that he had entered into an agreement with defendant James Scudday for certain services to be performed on his behalf; however, at the time of making this agreement Mr. Scudday knew that he would not fulfill his end of it due to prior commitments elsewhere and thus acted fraudulently when entering into said contract with Mr. Shaffer who relied upon its terms in good faith believing they were both bound by them legally and morally alike as per their mutual understanding at the time they agreed upon its conditions together without any knowledge or suspicion from either party regarding any potential breach thereof which could occur later down the line after signing off on such document but before fulfilling all obligations therein contained within same accordingly theretofore as aforesaid heretofore so stated hereinabove herebywithal whereupon now therefore thenceforth henceforth forthwith therefor consequently ergo sum quod est veritas et justitia ad infinitum amen finis

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion of William A. Shaffer v. James A. Scudday, Justice McLean argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced according to its terms and conditions as long as it is not contrary to public policy or illegal in nature. He believed that if one party had fulfilled their obligations under the contract, then they were entitled to receive what was promised by the other party regardless of any intervening events such as bankruptcy or insolvency on behalf of either party involved in the agreement. Furthermore, he stated that courts should not interfere with contracts unless there are clear grounds for doing so and even then only when necessary for justice's sake; otherwise it would lead to uncertainty and confusion in contractual relationships which could have far-reaching consequences throughout society at large.

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