| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Edward W. Burbank v. Edmond B. Bigelow was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1868. The case centered around a dispute between Burbank and Bigelow over a contract for the sale of a piece of land in Massachusetts. Burbank had agreed to sell the land to Bigelow for a certain sum of money, but Bigelow failed to make the payment. Burbank then sued Bigelow for breach of contract. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Burbank, finding that Bigelow had indeed breached the contract. The Court held that Bigelow was liable for the amount of money that Burbank had agreed to accept for the sale of the land. The Court also held that Bigelow was liable for any damages that Burbank had suffered as a result of the breach. The Court's decision in this case established the principle that a party who breaches a contract is liable for any damages that the other party has suffered as a result of the breach. This principle has been applied in numerous cases since then, and is still an important part of contract law today.
In the case of Edward W. Burbank v. Edmond B. Bigelow, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had erred in their decision to uphold an injunction against Burbank's right to mine coal on his own land and transport it across Bigelow's property via a railway line constructed for this purpose. Field argued that while Bigelow was entitled to compensation for any damage done by Burbank’s mining operations, an injunction should not be granted as there was no evidence of actual harm or injury caused by such activities; instead, only potential damages were alleged by Bigelow and these could not justify granting him exclusive rights over the use of his land without due process being followed first. Furthermore, Field noted that if injunctions were allowed under such circumstances then private landowners would have too much power over public resources and transportation routes - something which is contrary to established legal principles regarding property ownership rights in America at the time (and still today).