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 United States, Appellants, v. David M. Hughes, Robert Sewall, And Franklin Hudson, A Minor, By His Tutor, Holmes Hutchinson

1850 • 52 U.S. 552 • Taney Court
In the United States Supreme Court case of The United States v. David M. Hughes, Robert Sewall, and Franklin Hudson (by his tutor Holmes Hutchinson), the court was asked to decide whether a minor could be held liable for damages caused by an illegal act he committed while in partnership with two adults. The three defendants had entered into a contract that was prohibited under federal law and as such were found guilty of violating it. In its ruling, the court determined that although minors are...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: 1850
52 U.S. 552
13 L. Ed. 809
1850 U.S. LEXIS 1526
Argued: Feb 25, 1851

The United States, Appellants, v. David M. Hughes, Robert Sewall, And Franklin Hudson, A Minor, By His Tutor, Holmes Hutchinson

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the United States Supreme Court case of The United States v. David M. Hughes, Robert Sewall, and Franklin Hudson (by his tutor Holmes Hutchinson), the court was asked to decide whether a minor could be held liable for damages caused by an illegal act he committed while in partnership with two adults. The three defendants had entered into a contract that was prohibited under federal law and as such were found guilty of violating it. In its ruling, the court determined that although minors are not generally responsible for their actions when they enter into contracts or other agreements, this particular situation warranted holding all parties accountable since they acted together in violation of federal law. Furthermore, it ruled that even though Franklin Hudson was only 16 years old at the time of entering into this agreement he should still be held liable for any damages resulting from his involvement in it due to his knowledge and understanding of what he was doing at the time.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of The United States v. David M. Hughes, Robert Sewall, and Franklin Hudson by his tutor Holmes Hutchinson, the dissenting opinion was that Congress had no authority to pass a law which allowed for an appeal from a decision made in admiralty court. This opinion argued that appeals should only be available when authorized by statute or common law; however, this particular act did not provide any such authorization and thus could not be enforced as it violated the Constitution's separation of powers doctrine. Furthermore, it was argued that if Congress were able to pass laws allowing for appeals without proper authorization then they would have too much power over judicial proceedings and decisions - something which is expressly forbidden under Article III of the Constitution. Ultimately, this dissent concluded that while there may have been good intentions behind passing this act into law its unconstitutionality meant it must be struck down in order to protect our system of checks and balances between branches of government.

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