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

West, Pls. In Err. Versus Barnes. Et Al.

1791 • 2 U.S. 401 • Jay Court
West, PLS. in Err. v. Barnes et al. was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 1837. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of land. The plaintiff, West, had entered into a contract with the defendants, Barnes et al., to purchase a tract of land. The contract specified that the defendants would convey the land to West upon payment of the purchase price. West paid the purchase price, but the defendants refused to convey the land. West then brought suit...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 Jay Court
Term: 1791
2 U.S. 401
1 L. Ed. 433
1791 U.S. LEXIS 189
Argued: Aug 02, 1791

West, Pls. In Err. Versus Barnes. Et Al.

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

West, PLS. in Err. v. Barnes et al. was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 1837. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of land. The plaintiff, West, had entered into a contract with the defendants, Barnes et al., to purchase a tract of land. The contract specified that the defendants would convey the land to West upon payment of the purchase price. West paid the purchase price, but the defendants refused to convey the land. West then brought suit against the defendants, seeking specific performance of the contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that the defendants were obligated to convey the land to West. The Court held that the contract was binding on the parties, and that the defendants were not entitled to any additional consideration beyond the purchase price that had already been paid. The Court also held that the defendants were not entitled to any damages for breach of contract, as they had not suffered any actual damages. The Court ordered the defendants to convey the land to West in accordance with the terms of the contract.

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