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

Slawson v. Grand Street Railroad Company

• 1882 • 107 U.S. 649 • Waite Court
In Slawson v. Grand Street Railroad Company, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to determine whether a contract between a railroad company and a passenger was enforceable. The plaintiff, Slawson, had purchased a ticket from the defendant, Grand Street Railroad Company, for a round-trip journey. The ticket contained a clause that stated that the ticket was non-transferable and that the passenger was not allowed to transfer the ticket to another person. Slawson had transferred the...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 Waite Court
Term: 1882
Docket: 238
107 U.S. 649
2 S. Ct. 663
27 L. Ed. 576
1882 U.S. LEXIS 1262
Argued: Apr 09, 1883

Slawson v. Grand Street Railroad Company

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In Slawson v. Grand Street Railroad Company, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to determine whether a contract between a railroad company and a passenger was enforceable. The plaintiff, Slawson, had purchased a ticket from the defendant, Grand Street Railroad Company, for a round-trip journey. The ticket contained a clause that stated that the ticket was non-transferable and that the passenger was not allowed to transfer the ticket to another person. Slawson had transferred the ticket to another person, and the railroad company refused to honor the ticket. The Supreme Court held that the contract between the railroad company and Slawson was enforceable. The Court reasoned that the contract was valid and binding, and that the railroad company was not obligated to honor the ticket after it had been transferred to another person. The Court also held that the clause in the ticket was valid and enforceable, and that the railroad company was entitled to refuse to honor the ticket after it had been transferred. The Court concluded that the railroad company was not liable for damages resulting from the transfer of the ticket.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In Slawson v. Grand Street Railroad Company, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced despite being in violation of state law. The majority opinion held that the contract should not be enforced as it violated public policy and constituted an illegal agreement under state law. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that while contracts which are against public policy or violate criminal statutes cannot be enforced, there is no reason why a valid civil contract should not stand even if it violates some minor provisions of local laws or regulations. He argued that such contracts can still serve to protect private rights and interests without infringing on any public policies or violating any criminal statutes; thus they ought to remain enforceable by courts of justice unless prohibited by express legislation from Congress.

Opinion written by Justice WBWoods
Decided: Apr 23, 1883
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