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

Yates v. National Home

• 1880 • 103 U.S. 674 • Waite Court
Yates v. National Home was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a contract between a national home for disabled volunteer soldiers and a former soldier was valid. The former soldier, Yates, had entered into a contract with the national home in which he agreed to pay a certain amount of money each month in exchange for the home's promise to provide him with a place to live and medical care. The national home argued that the contract was invalid because it was...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 Waite Court
Term: 1880
Docket: 224
103 U.S. 674
26 L. Ed. 452
1880 U.S. LEXIS 2174

Yates v. National Home

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

Yates v. National Home was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a contract between a national home for disabled volunteer soldiers and a former soldier was valid. The former soldier, Yates, had entered into a contract with the national home in which he agreed to pay a certain amount of money each month in exchange for the home's promise to provide him with a place to live and medical care. The national home argued that the contract was invalid because it was not authorized by Congress. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the national home was authorized by Congress to enter into contracts with former soldiers, and that the contract in question was within the scope of that authority. The Court also noted that the contract was beneficial to both parties, and that it was not contrary to public policy. Therefore, the Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In Yates v. National Home, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made in violation of an act of Congress. The majority opinion held that the contract should not be enforced because it violated federal law and therefore was void. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on the grounds that enforcing contracts is essential for maintaining public confidence in private agreements and upholding justice among individuals who have entered into such agreements. He argued that while Congress has authority to pass laws regulating certain types of contracts, they cannot make those contracts completely unenforceable without violating due process rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Furthermore, he noted that if courts were allowed to refuse enforcement simply because a contract violates some statute or regulation then all contractual obligations would become uncertain and unreliable which would lead to chaos in commerce and industry as well as undermine public faith in private transactions

Opinion written by Justice JHarlan(1)
Decided: Mar 21, 1881
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