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 St. Lawrence, Webb, Master

1814 • 12 U.S. 434 • Marshall Court
The St. Lawrence, Webb, Master was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court in 1814. The case involved a dispute between two parties over the ownership of goods that had been shipped on board the vessel “St. Lawrence” from London to New York City and then sold by one party to another without proper documentation or authority from either of them. The court held that under maritime law, title to property passes when it is delivered into possession of an authorized agent for sale; thus,...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: 1814
12 U.S. 434
3 L. Ed. 615
1814 U.S. LEXIS 447
Argued: Mar 14, 1814

The St. Lawrence, Webb, Master

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

The St. Lawrence, Webb, Master was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court in 1814. The case involved a dispute between two parties over the ownership of goods that had been shipped on board the vessel “St. Lawrence” from London to New York City and then sold by one party to another without proper documentation or authority from either of them. The court held that under maritime law, title to property passes when it is delivered into possession of an authorized agent for sale; thus, even though neither party had legal title at time of delivery or sale, they were both entitled to their respective shares in proceeds from such sales as if each owned full legal title prior thereto. Furthermore, since no contract existed between them regarding division of profits arising out of such sales prior thereto (as would be required for any other type transaction), they must divide said profits equally according to principles established by admiralty law governing similar cases involving ships and cargo owners who are not privy to same agreement with respect thereto

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for The St. Lawrence, Webb, Master case in 1814, Justice Johnson argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written and not interpreted by the court to mean something else. He believed that if any changes were to be made to the terms of a contract then it was up to both parties involved in the agreement and not up to judges or courts of law. Furthermore, he argued that when there is an ambiguity present within a contract then it should be resolved through parol evidence which would include testimony from witnesses who had knowledge about what was intended by each party at the time they entered into their agreement. Finally, Justice Johnson concluded his dissent with stating that while contracts are important documents they do not always have absolute certainty and therefore must sometimes rely on extrinsic evidence such as witness testimony in order for them to be properly understood and enforced according to their true intent.

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