Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
JACOWAY v. DENTON, 1872 — 154 U.S. 583 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
JACOWAY v. DENTON
154 U.S. 58320 L. Ed. 645·Supreme Court of the United States·1872
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
JACOWAY v. DENTON.
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OE THE STATE OE ARKANSAS.
No. 47.
Submitted November 14, 3871.
Decided April 1, 1872.
Sevier v. Haskell, 14 Wall. 12, followed.
The case is stated in the opinion.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Justice Swayne]
Mr. Justice Swayne
delivered the opinion of the court.
This case is also before us upon a motion to dismiss the writ of error for want of jurisdiction.
The defendant in error brought suit in the Circuit Court of Yell County to the September term, 1866, upon the writing obligatory executed to him by William D. Jacoway, deceased, on the 4th of October, 1860, for the sum of $4500 payable one year from date, with interest at the rate of ten per cent per annum from the maturity of the obligation until its payment. The administrator interposed three pleas:
(1) That the consideration of the obligation was the purchase of slaves, and that they were all emancipated by the constitution of Arkansas adopted in 1864.
(2) That the slaves were emancipated by an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and that the consideration of the obligation thereby wholly failed.
(3) That the contract was originally null and void.
The plaintiff demurred. The court sustained the demurrers and gave judgment against the defendant for the amount claimed in the declaration. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court of the State, and that court affirmed the judgment.
Mr. A. H. Garland and Mr. P. Phillips for plaintiffs in error.
No appearance for defendant in error.
After what we have said in Sevier v. Haskell, 14 Wall. 12, just decided, it is sufficient to remark that the record discloses no question cognizable by this court.
The writ of error is therefore dismissed.