STEIN ET AL., DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE FIRM NAME OF STEIN, HALL & COMPANY, ETC.
v.
TIP-TOP BAKING COMPANY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Stein sued Tip-Top Baking Company for breach of a contract to purchase 80,000 pounds of Badex, seeking damages of $5,800 minus the $4,521.95 the plaintiffs received when they later sold the goods themselves nearly a year after the breach. The District Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, finding the amount in controversy fell below $3,000 after deducting the resale proceeds, but the Supreme Court reversed, holding that the plaintiffs were entitled to rescind the contract and pursue their claim for the full contract price without offsetting the subsequent resale proceeds, as those proceeds resulted from the plaintiffs' independent actions after rescission rather than from mitigation on the defendant's behalf.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an action to recover damages for breach of a corn tract to purchase 80,000 pounds of Badex, a foodstuff. The defendant demurred because, as it alleged, the petition showed that the amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, did not exceed the sum of three thousand dollars, and the action was dismissed by the District Court on that ground. Judicial Code, § 24. The case comes here on that single question, as determining the jurisdiction of the District Court.
The material allegations are that the agreed price was $5800; that at the time of the breach no price could be got for the goods and that they had no value then in the market or elsewhere; that upon the breach the plaintiffs took possession of them as their own, -and that nearly a year later they sold the same as their own to third persons for $4521.95, but it is expressly denied that the plaintiffs sold on behalf of the defendant. The position of the defendant is that the price realized, even if diminished by, transportation charges of $620.45, must be deducted from the contract price and leaves less than $3000. We presume that the District Court took the same view, although its opinion referred to in the judgment is not printed, as it should have been.
Rule 8. But obviously the plaintiffs have a claim that can not be dismissed as absurd, and on which they are entitled to the judgment of the Court. Their allegations are that on the unjustified refusal of the defendant to accept the Badex they rescinded the transaction, and they argue that when they did so their rights against the defendant became fixed and that what they may have done a year afterwards was wholly their own affair. The cases where instead of rescinding the seller sells for the buyer’s account have no application. The breach of contract occurred in Louisville, Kentucky, where possibly the contract was made. If the case is governed. by the law of that State, as to which it would be premature to express an opinion, we infer that the plaintiffs’ argument probably would be regarded as correct. Zinsmeister v. Rock Island Canning Co., 145 Ky. 25, 31. See further Dustan v. McAndrew, 44 N. Y. 72, 78; Van Brocklen v. Smeallie, 140 N. Y. 70, 75. At all events the plaintiffs are entitled to try their case.
Judgment reversed.-
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (40 total)
-
Jean v. Nelson, 727 F.2d 957 (11th Cir. 1984)….... ” Id. at 190, 78 S.Ct. at 1075; see also Mezei, 345 U.S. at 215, 73 S.Ct. at 631 (alien permitted to enter pending a decision on admissibility “is treated as if stopped at the border”); Kaplan v. Tod, 267 U.S. 228, 230-31, 45 S.Ct. 257, 257-58, 69 L.Ed. 585 (1925); United States v. Ju Toy, 198 U.S. 253, 263, 25 S.Ct. 644, 646, 49 L.Ed. 1040 (1905); Nishimura Ekiu, 142 U.S. at 661, 12 S.Ct. at 339. This principle — the “entry doctrine” fiction — has been recognized as well by the fifth circuit. Ahrens v…
-
United States v. Canals-Jimenez, 943 F.2d 1284 (11th Cir. 1991)…e boundary line and kept there unless and until her right to enter should be declared.... She was still in theory of law at the boundary line and had gained no foothold in the United States.” Kaplan v. Tod, 267 U.S. 228, 230, 45 S.Ct. 257, 257-58, 69 L.Ed. 585 (1925). More recently, the Court has stated, “For over a half century this Court has held that the detention of an alien in custody pending determination of his admissibility does not legally constitute an entry though the alien is physically withi…
-
Bautista Castillo-Felix v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 601 F.2d 459 (9th Cir. 1979)…en inspected allowing nunc pro tunc relief in the former situation only). This view that a previous unlawful entry can be corrected retroactively is strength [*471] ened by the conceptual tool used in Kaplan v. Tod, 267 U.S. 228, 230, 45 S.Ct. 257, 69 L.Ed. 585 (1925) in which an alien who had not been lawfully admitted was “regarded as stopped at the boundary line and kept there unless and until her right to enter should be declared.” Even though she was allowed to live in the United States, she “was stil…
Previewing 3 of 40 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence