THE TERRITORY OF NEW MEXICO

v.

THE UNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK ET AL.; SAME V. SAME

Citator

Cited By (12 total)

• Fla. Dep't of State v. Treasure Salvors, Inc., 458 U.S. 670 (U.S. 1982)
  …— the statute’s “inapplica[bility]” after United States v. Florida, 420 U. S. 531 (1975). The inherent uncertainty in contracts for salvage has led admiralty courts to find few reasons that would justify reformation of a contract. See The Elfrida, 172 U. S. 186, 196 (1898) (“We do not think that a salvage contract should be sustained as an exception to the general rule, but rather that it should, prima facie, be enforced, and that it belongs to the defendant to establish the exception”). Gilmore & Black 58…
• United States v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 315 U.S. 289 (U.S. 1942)
  …who takes advantage of the helplessness of the ship in distress to drive an unconscionable bargain will not be aided by the courts in his attempts to enforce the bargain. Post v. Jones, 19 How. 150, 160; The Tornado, 109 U. S. 110, 117; The Elfrida, 172 U. S. 186, 193-94. In Post v. Jones, supra, it was said that the courts “will not tolerate the doctrine that a salvor can take the advantage of his situation, and avail himself of the calamities of others to drive a bargain; nor will they permit the performan…
• Fred Fisher Music Co. v. M. Witmark & Sons, 318 U.S. 643 (U.S. 1943)
  …ances that enforcement would be unconscionable. Cf. Union Pacific R. Co. v. Public Service Comm’n, 248 U. S. 67, 70; Lonergan v. Buford, 148 U. S. 581, 589-91; Snyder v. Rosenbaum, 215 U. S. 261, 265-66; Post v. Jones, 19 How. 150, 160; The Elfrida, 172 U. S. 186, 193-94. It is quite another matter to hold, as we are asked in this case, that regardless of the circumstances surrounding a particular^ assignment, no agreements by authors to assign their renewal interests are binding. It is not for courts to ju…