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.
DUTTON v. PALAIRET, 1869 — 154 U.S. 563 · caselaw · US
General
DUTTON v. PALAIRET
154 U.S. 56319 L. Ed. 165·Supreme Court of the United States·1869
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
DUTTON v. PALAIRET.
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA.
No. 184.
Decided November 8, 1869.
Affirmed upon the authority of Bronson v. Bodes, 7 Wall. 229.
The case is stated in the opinion.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Chief Justice Chase]
Mr. Chief Justice Chase
delivered the opinion of the court.
Mr. David W. Sellers for plaintiff in error.
No appearance for defendants in error.
The same questions substantially are presented in this case as in the ease of Bronson v. Rodes, 7 Wall. 229, heretofore decided at this term. The principles settled by that judgment require that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania be affirmed, and it is so ordered. Affirmed.