Pritchard v. Norton
United States Supreme Court
106 U.S. 124 (1882)
- Written by Denise McGimsey, JD
Facts
Pritchard, a Louisiana citizen, executed an appeal bond on behalf of a railroad against whom a judgment had been rendered by a Louisiana court. Pritchard then entered into an agreement with Norton (defendant), a New York citizen, and McComb, a Delaware citizen, whereby Norton and McComb executed a bond of indemnity in favor of Pritchard if the railroad’s appeal were unsuccessful. The indemnity was signed and delivered in New York. After the railroad’s appeal failed and Pritchard became obligated to pay the judgment, his executrix (plaintiff) sued Norton on the indemnity. Norton defended against the suit on the grounds that the indemnity lacked consideration. Under New York law, as proposed to apply by Norton, the fact that Norton and McComb had never requested that Pritchard become a surety for the railroad deprived the indemnity of consideration. Under Louisiana law, on the other hand, Pritchard’s preexisting obligation to the railroad constituted adequate consideration. A federal circuit court in Louisiana decided in favor of Norton. Pritchard’s executrix appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Matthews, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 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.
