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

Cornelius D. Thorp, Plaintiff In Error, v. Ardel B. Raymond

1853 • 57 U.S. 247 • Taney Court
Cornelius D. Thorp brought a case against Ardel B. Raymond in the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, claiming that he had been wrongfully evicted from his property by Raymond and was seeking damages for the loss of use of his land. The court found that Thorp had not provided sufficient evidence to prove wrongful eviction or any other legal cause for action, so it dismissed the complaint with costs to be paid by Thorp. The court also held that even if there were grounds for an action, such as trespass...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: 1853
57 U.S. 247
14 L. Ed. 923
1850 U.S. LEXIS 1551
Argued: Feb 13, 1854

Cornelius D. Thorp, Plaintiff In Error, v. Ardel B. Raymond

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

Cornelius D. Thorp brought a case against Ardel B. Raymond in the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, claiming that he had been wrongfully evicted from his property by Raymond and was seeking damages for the loss of use of his land. The court found that Thorp had not provided sufficient evidence to prove wrongful eviction or any other legal cause for action, so it dismissed the complaint with costs to be paid by Thorp. The court also held that even if there were grounds for an action, such as trespass or ejectment, they would have been barred due to laches because more than two years had passed since the alleged eviction occurred and no suit was filed until after this time period expired. Ultimately, the Supreme Court affirmed its decision on appeal from Thorp's side and ruled in favor of Raymond without awarding any damages to either party involved in this dispute over real estate ownership rights.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Cornelius D. Thorp v. Ardel B. Raymond, Thorp argued that he was entitled to a judgment against Raymond for damages caused by his negligence in failing to properly secure and maintain an animal on his property which resulted in it injuring Thorp's horse and carriage while they were passing along a public highway near Raymond's land. The majority opinion held that there could be no recovery because the injury occurred on a public road rather than upon private property; however, Justice McLean dissented from this ruling arguing that although the injury did occur on a public road, if it had been foreseeable due to Raymond’s negligent act or omission then he should still be liable for any resulting damage regardless of where it happened. He further noted that as long as one is not guilty of contributory negligence themselves, they should have recourse when injured by another person’s wrongful acts even if those acts do not constitute an actionable trespass under common law principles such as those applied by the majority opinion here.

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