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

Williams v. Conger

• 1888 • 131 U.S. 390 • Fuller Court
Williams v. Conger was a Supreme Court case decided in 1871. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a steamboat. The plaintiff, Williams, had contracted to purchase the steamboat from the defendant, Conger, for $2,000. However, Conger refused to deliver the boat, claiming that the contract was invalid because it had not been signed by both parties. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Williams, finding that the contract was valid and enforceable. 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 Fuller Court
Term: 1888
Docket: 105
131 U.S. 390
9 S. Ct. 793
33 L. Ed. 201
1888 U.S. LEXIS 2043

Williams v. Conger

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

Williams v. Conger was a Supreme Court case decided in 1871. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a steamboat. The plaintiff, Williams, had contracted to purchase the steamboat from the defendant, Conger, for $2,000. However, Conger refused to deliver the boat, claiming that the contract was invalid because it had not been signed by both parties. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Williams, finding that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court held that a contract does not need to be signed by both parties in order to be valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the parties had agreed to the terms of the contract, and that the lack of a signature did not invalidate the contract. The Court's decision in Williams v. Conger established an important precedent in contract law. It established that a contract does not need to be signed by both parties in order to be valid and enforceable. This precedent has been followed in numerous cases since then, and is still applicable today.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the Supreme Court case of Williams v. Conger, Justice Harlan delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was too narrow and failed to consider important facts about the case. He noted that while it is true that Congress has authority over public lands, this does not mean they can take away an individual's property rights without due process or just compensation. In this particular instance, he argued that there were sufficient facts presented to suggest that Mrs. Williams had acquired title by adverse possession prior to her death and thus should have been entitled to compensation for her estate when Congress took control of the land she occupied. Furthermore, Justice Harlan believed it was wrong for Congress to be able use its power over public lands as a way of avoiding paying individuals who may have valid claims against them; such actions could lead people with legitimate interests in land being taken away from them without any recourse whatsoever.

Opinion written by Justice JPBradley
Decided: Oct 22, 1888
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