Fauntleroy v. Lum
United States Supreme Court
210 U.S. 230, 28 S.Ct. 641, 52 L.Ed. 1039 (1908)
- Written by Matthew Carney, JD
Facts
Lum (defendant) engaged in speculation regarding the cotton futures market. This speculation resulted in Lum owing a debt to Fauntleroy (plaintiff). The transaction at issue occurred in Mississippi. When Lum refused to repay the money, Fauntleroy initiated an arbitration proceeding, which concluded with a judgment in Fauntleroy’s favor. Fauntleroy then brought a case in the Missouri state court, where he sought to enforce the judgment against Lum. The Missouri court had proper personal jurisdiction over Lum and entered a directed verdict in favor of Fauntleroy. In the Missouri court, Lum argued that the transaction he and Fauntleroy engaged in was illegal under Mississippi law. The Missouri court refused to hear this argument. Lum then brought an appeal before the Mississippi Supreme Court, which found in Lum’s favor. The court specifically held that the Missouri court could not enforce an illegal transaction. Fauntleroy appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Holmes, J.)
Dissent (White, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
