Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Little Vs. Dawson

Little vs Dawson

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1791
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/78034

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
4 U.S. 111
Subject
Insurance

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Insurance

Key legal issue
Insurance

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Little

Respondent

Dawson

Excerpt

little v. dawson - 4 u.s. 111 (1791) u.s. supreme court little v. dawson, 4 u.s. 111 (1791) 4 u.s. 111 (dall.) little v. dawson et al. executors of jones. supreme court of pennsylvania. september term, 1791 case for services rendered by jane little, the plaintiff, to aquila jones, the testator. the court. the court, in the charge to the jury, stated, that it was in full proof, that the plaintiff had served the testator, with great diligence, for a period exceeding eleven years, on which two questions arose: 1st. was she entitled to any compensation? 2d. had she received a compensation? as to the first, it was ruled, that if the services were rendered merely in expectation of a legacy, without any contract, express or implied, but relying, implicitly, on the testator's generosity, the action could not be maintained. the weight of the evidence, however, is that he promised to take care of her, though he did not say how; that at one time he offered to marry her; and, at another time, he said that he would provide for her as a child. as to the second question, it is merely a matter of fact, on which the jury must decide. for the plaintiff, rawle. for the defendant, sergeant and roberts, who cited 1 vern. 98. 2 atk. 251. 409. 2 stra 728. 1 dall. 265. 1 bar. 157. pract. reg. 357. 3 rep. chan. 64. 2 stra. 910.

Full Judgment

LITTLE v. DAWSON - 4 U.S. 111 (1791)
U.S. Supreme Court LITTLE v. DAWSON, 4 U.S. 111 (1791)

4 U.S. 111 (Dall.)

Little
v.
Dawson et al. Executors of Jones.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

September Term, 1791

CASE for services rendered by Jane Little, the plaintiff, to Aquila Jones, the testator.

THE COURT.

The COURT, in the charge to the jury, stated, that it was in full proof, that the plaintiff had served the testator, with great diligence, for a period exceeding eleven years, on which two questions arose: 1st. Was she entitled to any compensation? 2d. Had she received a compensation? As to the first, it was RULED, that if the services were rendered merely in expectation of a legacy, without any contract, express or implied, but relying, implicitly, on the testator's generosity, the action could not be maintained. The weight of the evidence, however, is that he promised to take care of her, though he did not say how; that at one time he offered to marry her; and, at another time, he said that he would provide for her as a child. As to the second question, it is merely a matter of fact, on which the jury must decide.

For the Plaintiff, Rawle.

For the Defendant, Sergeant and Roberts, who cited 1 Vern. 98. 2 Atk. 251. 409. 2 Stra 728. 1 Dall. 265. 1 Bar. 157. Pract. Reg. 357. 3 Rep. Chan. 64. 2 Stra. 910.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial